Select Committee on Administration of South Australia's Prisons
Wednesday 15 November, 2017
I rise today to speak about the report from the Select Committee on the Administration of
South Australia’s Prisons, which I tabled yesterday. I would firstly like to
start by acknowledging the contributions provided by my colleagues the Hon
Tammy Franks MLC, the Hon Justin Hanson MLC, the Hon Tung Ngo MLC and my friend and colleague the Hon
David Ridgway MLC. I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of committee
secretary Leslie Guy and also the research officers, Dr Trevor Bailey and Dr Margaret Robinson. Their
work has ensured that the committee was able run smoothly. The valuable input
from those who provided submissions and oral evidence throughout the process
must also be acknowledged.
This Select Committee was formed on 30 November 2016, to inquire into the government’s
administration of the state’s prisons. In particular we were tasked with specifically
looking into the matters, such as the cost and impacts involved, forecasted capacity
and whether there was a correlation between overcrowding and the breakdown of
administration. Furthermore, there was also a need to inquire into a number of
incidents which occurred between July and October of 2016, which included
prisoner being prevented from re-entering Yatala Labour Prison, the death of a
prisoner, along with 3 officers following an altercation at the same location
and a seven hour siege in Port Augusta. It has been shown through submissions
provided to the committee that the pressures placed on prisons, such as
overcrowding and recidivism, have an adverse effect on their administration and
the safety of prisoners, employees and the public. Public safety is a point of
focus which has led to an increase of the prison population and it was a point
of focus in the recommendations put forth by the committee.
The Committee looked into placing specific emphasis on the rates of recidivism
within the state’s correctional system and what could be done to considerably cut
down this figure. The current estimation is that 46% of all prisoners return
back into the system following their release. This is simply far too high and
places a greater than necessary strain on the administration of the state’s
prisons. We have put forward 16 recommendations which we believe will aid in
addressing some of the issues presented to committee. When I moved the motion
to establish this committee, we were told that for the cost the state pays to
house a prisoner, the South Australian public should have confidence that the
system is delivering an outcome in a rehabilitation context. From the
submissions we received, there is far more that can be done. The men and women
within the Department perform an excellent job day-to-day. Our measures seek to
give them more opportunities to address the rehabilitation aspect of a prison
sentence, while at the same time increasing their own level of safety. I am of
the belief that these measures, if implemented would not only be of benefit in
the short-term to the prison population, but long-term it would cost this state
less in housing prisoners and have a substantial effect in reducing
overcrowding.
The lessons that can be taken from the incidents which the committee was formed around are
based on a common sense approach to our prison administration. This is
something which we have made a point of addressing through our recommendations
The first recommendation put forth, and one such example of a common sense
approach, is in regards to projections of prison populations. Prisoner numbers
have been understated consistently in recent budget estimations, by DCS. The
additional numbers in the prison population has placed a strain on budgetary
measures which the department puts in place. It would seem to most that if the
modelling is consistently off, something within its approach has to change. Due
to this point, the committee has put forth a recommendation which would see DCS
reviewing its predictive modelling with a view to ensuring greater accuracy and
more reliable budget setting. Data which is more reliable would aid in
addressing surge periods and overcrowding issues, which place a great deal of
strain on the system, but also on the mental health of prisoners and those
working within correctional services. Preparing adequately would help to
alleviate this.
Criminogenic programs are viewed upon by many around the world as being of great importance
in equipping prisoners for a life once their sentence has been completed. As
such, there have been a couple of recommendations in the tabling of this
report, which aim to increase the participation rate for prisoners within these
efforts. The first of these centres around allowing all prisoners to commence
and complete required criminogenic programs before the expiry of their non-parole
period. If rehabilitation is not provided to a satisfactory level, there is a flow
on effect down the line following a prisoners release. There is more likely to
be a greater cost to the community through aspects such as welfare payments and
housing. Reducing the overall cost to the public, while at the same time
providing those who have served their sentence with critical skills which
prevent reoffending, is another measure which seems to be a clear, common sense
approach.
Building upon this recommendation, we are of the view that remand prisoners should also
be allowed to opt into these criminogenic programs. As a committee we took in
submissions which showed that there are no such programs in place for prisoners
on remand. This is important as some may find themselves in remand for up to
two years before trial. When coupled with the fact that sentences can include
time served, it demonstrates the lack of forward thinking within policy. It
lets go of any notion of rehabilitation, instead promoting a culture of
institutionalisation and leaves many poorly equipped for life when released,
thus increasing the rate of recidivism. Nationally, we have the highest rate of
remand prisoners. It would seem quite reasonable to try to reduce this number,
or at the very least provide many of them with an opportunity to prepare for
life following their sentence. If these prisoners were able to opt into these
programs we could immediately begin to tackle the rehabilitation aspect of a
prison stay. This could only lead to more positive outcomes for the community,
while being an efficient use of resources and time.
Many of the issues faced by those within South Australia’s prisons revolve around their
mental health. It is an issue of great importance, within the prison system. The
rate of reported prisoners with mental health issues is significant. This only
puts further strain on our prisons, while at the same time increasing the rate
of recidivism. To that end, we recommend that DCS improves access to mental
health service for both prisoners on remand and sentenced prisoners who do not
have acute mental health issues. Furthermore, we are of the view that mental
health services in prisons be made available to match the mental health
services available in the community, with DCS to investigate whether Medicare
would fund mental health services for prisoners by paying for 10 psychological
visits. This recommendation would bring the prison system into line with the
services available for the general public.
This cannot be done however, without recommending that health services be provided in a
timely manner to address delays in staff accessing and attending to short and
long-term health issues. Addressing mental health issues is an imperative.
Delivering a service to the prison population, which is of a high standard has
a preventative effect, which has been demonstrated overseas in places such as
the state of Texas. As part of the submissions provided, we were shown that
addressing health concerns and creating better rehabilitation outcomes has
allowed them to shut a number of prisons within the state. This is working
proof that effectively dealing with the cause, not the symptom can have a
tremendous influence in taking the pressure off the prison system. Once again
providing adequate resourcing at the heart of the issue should have a great
impact in bringing down the cost to the public, the rate of recidivism and
therefore the long-term effects of overcrowding.
This committee has put forth 16 separate recommendations which it believes can help
create better outcomes for the Department, the general public and the
prisoners, themselves. This is no small number. If we are not addressing the
issue of why many of these people find themselves in prison, we can never truly
reduce the rate of recidivism and as such our prison population will continue
to grow. If we address the problem at the cause, we can not only rehabilitate a
greater number of those in the prison population, but adjust the ever-growing upward
trend of those within our prisons. This would place less strain on the system, give
the state and the taxpayer a more beneficial return on expenditure and more
importantly create a positive outcome for the offender and the public. I
commend the report to the house.