SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE, $656,320,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE, $168,000

Witness:

Hon. K.O. Foley, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Motor Sport, Minister Assisting the Premier with the Olympic Dam Expansion Project.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr G. Burns, Acting Commissioner of Police, South Australia Police.

Mr I. Hartmann, Manager, Finance, South Australia Police.

Mr D. Patriarca, Director, Business Service, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: Good morning. Estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by Friday 30 September 2011. There is a flexible approach to questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating on each side, but I am led to believe, from the leader of government questions today, that there are no questions. Is that correct, member for Taylor?

Mrs VLAHOS: Yes, it is.

The CHAIR: There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee, but documents can be supplied to the chair for distribution to the committee. Questions must go to the minister, not his advisers. I ask that all members who are asking questions give very clear indications of where they are in the budget papers. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, Madam Speaker. This is the opposition's day; I accept that, and I am happy to facilitate as many questions as the opposition can think of to ask me.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have with me: the Acting Commissioner of Police, Deputy Police Commissioner Gary Burns; Denis Patriarca, the Director of Business Services—any problems that we have will be his fault—and Ian Hartmann, Manager of Finance.

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel, do you have an opening statement, or would you like to go straight to the questions?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No ma'am, straight into the questions. Minister, I refer to page 91 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Sub-program 1.2: Event management. This sub-program includes policing of sporting and other public events. By way of explanation, minister: SAPOL is involved in managing many community events, such as the annual Christmas Toy Run from Glenelg to Hahndorf Oval, organised by the reputable Motorcycle Riders Association.

The opposition has been advised that, two years ago, the toy run—the largest of its type in Australia—raised $300,000 for the St Vincent de Paul charity. Advice has also been received, minster, that last year, due to the fact that SAPOL reduced its level of support, the toy run was in doubt, and the confusion about the route significantly reduced the number of participants, and as a result donations totalled just half of the previous year (that being $150,0000).

The question is, minister: has SAPOL now advised the Mount Barker Council that it has completed a safety risk assessment of the Toy Run and that, owing largely to the increase in development in the inner Hahndorf area (particularly along Old Mount Barker Road and near the Mount Barker Freeway exit), the level of safety of Toy Run participants and the general public is no longer acceptable?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is your first question, the Toy Run?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is the question, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Toy run?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, it is a very important charitable event that raises a lot of money of charity, so—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am sure it is; I do not discount that. I am just somewhat taken aback that it is the first question. We will take that on notice and come back to you.

An honourable member: That will keep you on the front bench.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think you are going to have to do a little bit better.

An honourable member: It was a good question because you cannot answer it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are right. We do not have the operational requirements of the Toy Run through Mount Barker at our fingertips, but we will get back to you on that.

The CHAIR: Excellent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you. Was SAPOL's risk assessment provided to the Mount Barker council in writing?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will get back to you on that as well.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Is it your understanding, minister, that, because of SAPOL's reduction in resources, the Toy Run to Hahndorf will be cancelled this year?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: SAPOL has no reduction in resources, globally. So, that is incorrect. Secondly, as I said, as much as I would really like to be able to help the member for Kavel in his constituency, we do not have those answers with us and we will come back to you on that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: How many police resources were allocated for last year's Toy Run; that is, the 2010 Toy Run?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Of all the issues confronting our state in modern civil society and the elements of good versus evil, you are asking me about a toy run! We will take that question on notice.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Just come back to the question.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, I will take it on notice.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I have not quite finished the question yet.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I promise next year that I will reprimand my police department and say, 'Next year, we have to have a brief on the Toy Run.'

Mr PENGILLY: So, does that mean you will be here next year, Kevin?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Of course. Why would I not?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Let me finish the actual question, minister. How many police resources were allocated to last year's Toy Run and were fewer resources allocated to that important charity event than protest runs, such as to the Barossa two years ago—the bikies' runs that they go on?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: If you are trying to have some correlation between police effort to ensure the safety of civilians and a bikie gang's—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am just asking a simple question, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It is a silly question—

The CHAIR: Allow the minister to answer the questions that you are actually asking.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —bordering on inane. The police, throughout my extensive experience with government and in this parliament, have always ensured the safety of people as number one priority. If you are suggesting that there is some diminution of police resources to a charity run, compared to a bikie run, they are two totally different events. Our police would never put the public in harm's way, be it a bikie run through pubs or a toy run to Mount Barker.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No suggestion at all, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, that is what it was.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is your interpretation.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I hope Isobel is not listening to this because you will be in real strife.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On to page 86—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You will be the first name on her list to go in a reshuffle, if this is the best you can do.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 86 in Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Administered items, statutory officer salaries (Police Commissioner). Why are payments to the commissioner given separate accounting treatment compared to that of the general employee expenses?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Why are we singling out the commissioner's salary, compared to—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Why is there a separate line?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I thought that you would have liked that. We get accused of not giving you enough information. We have itemised the police commissioner's salary, I guess, have we? I would have thought you would be applauding us for it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What is the base salary of the commissioner, minister?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We do not have that with us, but it would be in their annual report, I would think.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you.

The CHAIR: I am sure that would be something that you could get back to the committee very quickly.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We would. We cannot hide salaries to police commissioners, or to backbenchers of parliament. It is all on the public record. And he is worth every cent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Hang on, we have got it. The 2010-11 salary to the commissioner was $398,000. The whole package is valued at $408,000.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you. The next question is by way of explanation, minister. In October last year, the Hon. David Ridgway MLC wrote to the Auditor-General with regard to payments made to the police commissioner. He highlighted that within the last four Auditor-General's reports there has been a significant discrepancy between budgeted and actual figures for the payment of salaries and allowances to the commissioner. For example, in last year's report the difference was $110,281. The question is: has the minister or his department had any communication with the Auditor-General or his department concerning this topic?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is a very, very unusual question. Are you questioning the integrity of the police commissioner?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Absolutely—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are, absolutely?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, I am not. I am just asking the question, that is all.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that in previous budget presentations we have had the police commissioner's base salary identified as an item, from administered items, and then we have a separate line for payments such as salary sacrificing, long service leave provisioning, sick leave provisioning, etc. So, that is why you have had two separate presentations. It cannot be construed—as clearly Mr Ridgway and you have done, incorrectly—that is an extra payment; it was the way of presentation. Now under our budget reporting we put all those payments grouped as one item.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: But you have had no communication with the Auditor-General in regard to it at all?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I do not know. Maybe he has written to me, but its presentation is not something that would concern me. The police commissioner is paid what his contract requires him to be paid, not another sum, if that is what you are trying to suggest.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am not suggesting anything. How do the salary allowances and payments made to the South Australian police commissioner compare to other commissioners in other Australian states?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Would you have asked this question if the police commissioner had have been with us today? Are you just doing it because he is not?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, I have no problem in asking the question whether he is here or not.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Are you asking how does our payment to our commissioner compare to other states? I do not know. My guess is we probably pay our police commissioner less than most other states. That tends to be the norm with our senior people. I have to tell you, if you want to put our police commissioner up against the performance that we have seen and witnessed in other states in Australia, we have an outstanding police commissioner and we do not have the almost daily ritual of public problems between governments and their police commissioner. So, we get both good value for money and we have a good man, a decent person doing the job.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I agree. Commissioner Hyde has done the South Australia Police and community a great service, and we certainly commend his work on this side of the house.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Good. Yes, sure; it sounds like it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am aware that the end of his service as commissioner is drawing closer.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is a very clever observation, because my guess is your tenure in this parliament is drawing closer. By definition, the longer we do a job the closer we are to ending—funny that! I think you are getting to the end of your shadow ministerial career a lot quicker than the police commissioner is getting to the end of his tenure. That would be my guess.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Come back to the question, minister. When will the recruitment process start for appointing his successor?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will begin that process at the appropriate time. We have not determined when that will be, but obviously before he goes would be handy.

Mr MARSHALL: My question relates to Budget Paper 5, Capital Investment Statement, page 32, in particular, the Police Academy redevelopment.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am very proud of that; it is in my electorate.

Mr MARSHALL: Last year in the budget papers there was an estimated total cost of the project of $59 million. This figure for the total project now is $53.4 million. Can the minister update us on the project and where the $6.6 million is to be saved?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Very good question, and I can see—I don't know, my guys opposite are obviously onto this one before me, but we have the most likely demotion from shadow cabinet and the most likely person to be promoted into cabinet—

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order, Madam Chair: relevance. I am particularly interested in the Police Academy redevelopment—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! What is your point of order, member for Norwood?

Mr MARSHALL: My point of order is relevance. I am very interested in the Police Academy redevelopment, not the minister's other interests.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I was just praising you. I said you are the man most likely.

Mr MARSHALL: We are already 20 minutes in; you arrived here five minutes late. I am particularly interested in the Police Academy redevelopment.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I don't think you can have a crack at me over time because I actually have my colleagues give way on questions to you; that is how fearful I am of your onslaught, I am prepared for you to have all the questions.

The CHAIR: Member for Norwood, Budget Paper 5, which page?

Mr MARSHALL: Page 32, right down the bottom, Police Academy Redevelopment.

The CHAIR: Excellent.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Following the tender call, savings of $5.6 million were able to be achieved on the project, which is an outstanding outcome. This resulted from close value management and a very competitive tender market. The revised budget of $53.4 million was approved by cabinet on 13 December 2010, as well as the redirection of the savings from this project and Roxby Downs Police Station to Murray Bridge and the new police headquarters. The savings have been cash-flowed in the financial year 2011-12, with receipts from land sales down at Taperoo still expected to be realised in the 2012-13 financial year.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much, minister. Over 6 hectares of the academy land at Taperoo was to be sold off for housing; that was the original plan.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes.

Mr MARSHALL: How much of the land has been sold thus far?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As I said, I don't think any at this stage, but we expect that to happen next financial year.

Mr MARSHALL: What is the most recent valuation of the land on a per hectare basis and how does that valuation compared to what it stood at when the project was first considered and announced?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We haven't had the land revalued since the initial scoping. LMC is the agency responsible for the disposal of that land and they are working through a master plan for that particular location. My bet would be that—well, I'm not going to bet on valuations.

Mr MARSHALL: Will the minister be seeking a briefing on a revised valuation?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Not at this stage until such time as the Land Management Corporation come forward with their proposal, which really will be a matter for the Minister for Infrastructure, not necessarily me.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It would be a great site, though.

Mr MARSHALL: Fantastic. I know it well.

Mr PENGILLY: Can I ask a follow-up on that?

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Just as a follow-up on that, I was on Public Works when we inspected and made that decision on that site and there was a valuation at the time given to us as part of the Public Works documentation. The minister does not have that at hand, does he?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, but could I also say at this stage, whilst the member for Finniss is speaking, that I would like to congratulate him for both his courage to state the bleeding obvious that Rob Lucas and Terry Stephens should be sacked from shadow cabinet for their outrageous attack on SANFL football—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Point of order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —Ian McLachlan, a great South Australian; and my beloved Port Power Football Club, so all strength to the member for—

The CHAIR: Point of order. Minister, point of order.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Relevance, Madam Chair. This has nothing to do with the budget.

The CHAIR: Of course, the problem with the estimates is they are a free-ranging discussion, much like an egg—a free-range egg. We are moving within quite wide parameters, however I can see what you are meaning at this point, member for Kavel, and perhaps the minister would like to come back to the—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I apologise, Madam Chair. I am just congratulating all these people over there. I am trying to be nice for a change.

Mr PENGILLY: Can I have a follow-up question once we have got past the pleasantries. Given that there was a valuation put on that land when the project came before Public Works, will the minister take on notice the question and an answer come back with the revised valuation?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The ever efficient Denis Patriarca has this for me. Receipts from land sales are forecast to be $32 million.

Mr MARSHALL: The original forecast was $32 million, or is that a revised forecast?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, that is the original business case.

Mr MARSHALL: And you would envisage that that would be significantly diminished because of the global financial crisis and the property market in South Australia at the moment?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would not have thought so. I do not know. It will be for others to advise us on that. This is waterfront land, seafront land. This is premium quality land; but, obviously, LMC will do a revaluation when it puts that case together. Alright, what's next?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 88 of the same budget paper and volume, and the heading 'High-tech Crime Fighting Equipment' (this is within the Investing expenditure summary). Does the purchase of the tasers fall within that budget line?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, we do not believe that it does.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Can you advise the committee, minister, how many of the 300 tasers that have been purchased have been put into active service?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: What do you think we do with them, stick them in the attic, or something? This may surprise the member, but we actually have them all in service, that is why we bought them.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Very good.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Next question, please.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On the Adelaidenow website on 20 February, Assistant Commissioner Gary Burns said:

While only 300 tasers had been bought, an expansion of the program had not been ruled out.

What discussions has the minister had with SAPOL regarding the expansion of the taser program?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have not had a lot of discussion, because the way I operate—

The CHAIR: Minister, can I just interrupt you, you do not have to comment on media comment.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: True. I will choose to in this instance and reserve my right not to in any future questions if I think that they are uncomfortable for me. This is a novelty, I know, for the Liberal Party, but I have sufficient confidence in my police administration to run the police force as it should. If they think 300 is enough, fine; if they think that they should have more, we will discuss that in terms of a budget allocation.

I do not prescribe, prescript or tell my police commissioner what he should do in terms of arming our police. It is an operational matter—but I am sure that if tasers prove be an effective additional piece of kit and they want to expand it they will come forward and tell me. We have not had a specific discussion in recent days about that. Actually, the acting commissioner might make a contribution on that matter given that he is the person you referred to.

Mr BURNS: Thank you. The 300 tasers have been rolled out generally through the metropolitan area and large police districts. We have not rolled out tasers to solo patrols and one or two person stations. We have taken a very measured approach to the implementation of taser in South Australia, and it is deployed in two-person patrols under strict guidelines. Once we have done all our evaluations on that—and we will never ever rule out the expansion of the taser program—we would obviously have to go back to the minister and explain the reasons why we want to go further to substantiate any funding needs.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What is the cost per unit of the tasers?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the house with that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Do we have any information that the units that we use here in South Australia are the same as other units used in other states?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to you on that. I am sorry, Mr Burns wants to say something.

Mr BURNS: We regularly have a look at what is being used around Australia. They are pretty much the same variety. They are actually an electronic-controlled device. Taser is the actual brand name of those. We use the X26, and we have fitted it with a video camera. Not all states have video cameras on their tasers; we have because we think that it is part of the evidentiary process, as well as taking into account the checks and balances and use of the taser.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: So, the actual item that we use in South Australia is different to what they use interstate, because we have a video on our tasers.

Mr BURNS: The taser is generally the same. My information is that virtually all states in Australia, if not all, use the X26 taser. Not all states necessarily have a video camera attached to the taser.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Has there been any work done in discussing a collaborative purchase order of these tasers with the other states?

Mr BURNS: No, there has not. I mean, there are police commissioner conferences where we look for a whole range of efficiencies in that regard. However, each state has progressed the electronic control device equipment at different speeds. For instance, Western Australia and Queensland were well ahead of South Australia in bringing it in, and we are ahead of Victoria in terms of deployment as well. So, it has not been one of those occasions where you can get that benefit of a broad approach to it.

The other thing is that there are differences of opinion at times between whether you do or do not need a video camera, so you do get discrepancies. Ultimately, we want what is best for the South Australia Police and the South Australian public, so we select that piece of equipment based on those prime criteria.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Still on page 88. We understand that three key Labor election pledges were (of which two are listed in the summary): 300 more police on our streets over the next four years; new state-of-the-art equipment; and reducing police red tape to keep our officers out on the beat. Of those pledges, which were instigated by the minister's office and which were subsequent to recommendations from SAPOL? So, basically, who made the suggestions? Were they government policy from the minister's office or did they come from suggestions from SAPOL?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The government does not consult or ask the police department to write a policy for an election, I can assure you of that. The policy that the government took to the last election would have been the result of knowledge gained in that portfolio by the then minister and other information that would come to hand that may or may not have included discussions, briefings, etc., that we have had with police over the years.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What measures have been put in place to reduce red tape?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Very good question. We are working with the Attorney-General's Department to look at simplification of documentation, forms, etc., greater use of the internet. We are always driving reform, right across government, in the red tape area, not just in the police department.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: So, you are working with the Attorney-General's Department in those areas that you have outlined.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: But has there been any red tape reduction achieved?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Of course.

Mr PENGILLY: What?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am about to tell you. We do not have exact details. We have simplified some of the forms. The police department is a modern functioning government agency. It would have an ongoing program of simplifying its procedures.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Are there specific measures in place?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think I have answered that question more than enough.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: One last question in relation to it. How do you measure the reduction?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is a good question. There has always been a lot of debate and conjecture about how one measures efficiency and reform in this area, and my guess is that it will go on being a debatable point. Next question.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Page 93, under the heading Performance Indicators. The target set in recent budgets for call answering times, is that 90 per cent or more calls will be answered within 10 seconds. I note that in the estimated result for 2010-11, SAPOL fell short of its target to answer at least 90 per cent of 000 calls within 10 seconds.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: By 1.08 per cent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Information provided to the Budget and Finance Committee by the Commissioner shows that in the 2009-10 period—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We had 93.3 per cent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —3.4 per cent of the calls to the call centre that fell outside the 10 second target were abandoned. That is, of the 10 per cent of the calls not answered within the 10 second time frame, 3.47 were not answered at all. The question is: given that the actual number of calls received by the call centre in 2009-10 was 411,955, and 10 per cent of that is around 41,000, will the minister confirm that the 3.47 per cent of abandoned calls is somewhere in the order of 1,500 calls?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Unfortunately, and I really hate to do this because I know that you are wanting to put your best foot forward and impress, you have confused the datasets. You have made a boo-boo. You are referring to the 131 444 number which is non-urgent calls to police. The 000 number is a different line altogether. It is the third item down. Do you see where it says 'No. of 000 calls presented to Police Communications Centre by Telstra', and then you have gone down a slot to the 131 444.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, I have gone to the next line, actually, minister: '% of 000 calls presented to the Police Communications Centre by Telstra answered within 10 seconds'. The target was 90 per cent. The estimated result was 88.92, which is less than the 90 per cent.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is right: 1.82 per cent less. So, what is your question?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Going back to 2009-10, 3.47 per cent of the calls that fell outside that 10 second target were abandoned.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, it did not. We exceeded it: 93.3 per cent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No; this was information provided to the Budget and Finance Committee.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am reading the budget papers and you only have to look yourself: 2009-10 actual was 93.3 per cent. We are 3.3 above our 90 per cent target.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's one point but the next point—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It was a good point, I would have thought.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: In the Budget and Finance Committee—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: This is not the Budget and Finance Committee, so—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, but it is all about the same issue. It is about unanswered calls to the 000 number.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Go back and check your notes because I think you are confusing yourself. You are certainly confusing me.

The CHAIR: Just for my own clarification here—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I think you are purposely trying to confuse it.

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel, just for my own clarification and nobody else's: I am looking at page 93. There is a table. Are you referring to the fifth budget line, the percentage of 000 calls.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes.

The CHAIR: You are not referring to anything else?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No; the question is that in the 2009-10 period, 3.47 per cent of the calls were abandoned, so the question is about that.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I don't know that—but I do now.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, the commissioner provided the evidence to—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are asking me about something in 2009-10 that you heard on a Budget and Finance Committee. Sorry if it is taking me a little bit of time to understand exactly what point you are trying to make.

The CHAIR: I am also confused.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You accused us of having the wrong information initially. You go back and read the Hansard, Kevin. Two minutes ago you accused me of having wrong information.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are referring to 2009-10 data that is wrong information. This is the next financial year. This is 2010-11's estimates committee.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: There is nothing stopping us going and looking at it historically.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: There is, actually. You can only ask about the budget estimate year that we are in.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The budget papers go back to 2009-10, so surely you can ask questions about that, for goodness sake.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No. Well, you can ask, but I do not have to answer them.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, good on you.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are wrong, because I am referring to a letter sent to Rob Lucas on the Budget and Finance Committee on 30 May. It is referring to the call centre, that is, the 131 444 non-urgent and non-essential policing inquiries. That is where there was 3.4 per cent of abandoned calls, not 000. You are saying 000; you are wrong. It is the non-essential number, and that may well be to do with spikes, it might be that we had a period of wet weather damage, a massive number of calls coming in in a concentrated period from storm damage, or whatever. So, that is not unreasonable, but you are trying to suggest it is 000; it is not.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We will check that, too.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, it's true; I have got the document here.

Mr MARSHALL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 115, expiation fees. It states:

[an] increase in expiation fines of $20 for fines of less than $100 and an increase of $50 for fines in excess of $100, commencing 2011-12 [budget]...

It has an expected additional revenue of $11.7 million in that financial year. A breach of 15 km/h hour to 30 km/h will now attract a $371 fine, while fines for those travelling more than 40 km/h above the speed limit will now be set at a $123 expiation fee. In the 2010-11 budget period, what percentage of speeding fines issued were for a breach of less than 15 km/h and what total revenue did that equate to?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the house with that number. The issue of speeding fines is a contentious issue, but I do not have any problem with it; I am relaxed about it. It is voluntary taxation. If you do not want to pay a $500 fine, don't speed. It is not rocket science. This might surprise the committee, but I got caught speeding. I got one of those $390 fines. Admittedly, I was going through the Mid North, where we change the speed zones—the councils do, at least—regularly; but, that's no excuse. I was doing 65 in a 50 zone, which I thought was a 60 zone. When the police officer told me that I had been speeding and then told me the amount of the fine, I said, 'What?' He looked at me, and he smiled and said, 'Sir, who would you complain to, do you think?' He got me good. Me.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the minister provide some details, then, on measures introduced last financial year and how it specifically the decreases in the speed intolerances coupled with increases to speeding fines have affected revenue outcomes for the current financial year?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: From memory from my previous time as police minister, the setting of intolerances is a matter for the police commissioner.

Mr MARSHALL: They have been significantly reduced, though, haven't they?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That may or may not be the case. I am not sure whether that information is public. No, we do not make that public. It is a risk mitigation strategy—stick to the speed limit. Like, hello? Don't speed.

Mr MARSHALL: What fine would you pay, say, if you are doing three kilometres over the speed limit, then?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, don't do it.

Mr MARSHALL: You're are not going to tell us that we have to go out and try it—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We keep the tolerances a secret, otherwise we are simply lifting the legal speed limit.

Mr MARSHALL: Minister, a moment ago you informed the committee that this was a voluntary form of taxation. With every other form of taxation, members of the public are completely informed by the taxation department of how their revenue is going to be raised, but in this one you want to keep it a secret from us. So, if it is a voluntary form of taxation, which you said it was to the committee only one minute ago, why don't you give us details of how we are going to be taxed?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: For as long as I have been around this place, it has always been at the discretion of the police commissioner and a matter that is not discussed publicly, otherwise you automatically lift the legal speed limit in the eyes of motorists. If they are told that they can go another X kilometres an hour and won't get pinched, the aggregate speed in the city will increase proportionately.

Mr MARSHALL: Minister, it was you who just announced everybody here today that it is a new form of voluntary taxation.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No; I have been saying that for as long as I have been in parliament. I know that as a peacock you want to strut yourself in terms of becoming a new minister—

Mr MARSHALL: We just want an answer.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The CHAIR: Point of order. Member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: He is the member for Norwood; he is not a peacock.

Mr MARSHALL: I'm not sure that that helps.

Mr PENGILLY: 'Captain Peacock', maybe? But he is not a peacock; he is the member for Norwood—Mr Marshall.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam speaker, the speed limit in this state is—

The CHAIR: Excuse me, minister, if I could just rule on that point of order? Indeed, calling somebody an animal is unparliamentary, so it is probably best that we don't do it. Carry on.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam Chair, I remind the committee and the excitable member for Norwood that the speed limit is 60km/h, and in some areas it is 50km/h, and in some areas it is 100km/h, and in some areas it is 110km/h. That is the speed limit. Stick to it and below, and you do not have a problem.

The CHAIR: Member for Finniss.

Mr MARSHALL: We are just going to wait on the minister to get back to us, I presume, in the future, and so we will move on to question—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Get back to you about what?

Mr MARSHALL: You said that you would take on notice the question about the percentage of speeding fines issued for less than 15km/h.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We do not have that data here, but I guess if it is of interest to you, we can get back to you.

Mr MARSHALL: It certainly is. Thank you very much.

The CHAIR: Member for Finniss.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would hate to think that you are going to go to an election promising weaker road safety laws than what we have at present.

Mr MARSHALL: I was making no comment and no argument in my question about road safety; I am just interested in the revenue implications of the new expiation fees. A lot of people do not think that it is fair, for example—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Do you think it is fair?

Mr MARSHALL: I think there are a lot of concerns out in the public that this is complete revenue-raising, and that when you ping somebody for doing a very small amount over the speed limit, and you do not even tell them what that tolerance is going to be—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, you argue that inside your outfit, and if your outfit wants to go to an election promising cheaper speeding fines—

The CHAIR: Member for Norwood, your colleague, the member for Finniss, was actually given the call.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry.

The CHAIR: So, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I refer to page 103 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Sub-program 3.1: Road Use Regulation, and specifically in relation to the detection of drink-driving. I will relay the details of an actual incident which occurred last Saturday night and which relates directly to the sub-program.

A woman in her late teens was found to be driving under the influence of alcohol in the Adelaide CBD. It was just after midnight and she was alone. She was asked to pull over in a taxi rank, and questioned whether she should be parking in the taxi zone. The police officer responded that it was fine, and spoke to the taxi drivers. She then went to the Norwood Police Station for a couple of hours, and then was driven back to her vehicle.

Upon return to her vehicle, police officers told her she could not drive her vehicle, but advised her that it had to be moved from the taxi rank; otherwise, her car would be impounded. She was then forced to wait in her vehicle until Dial-a-Driver turned up and returned her and her vehicle to her home. Understandably, the woman was directed not to drive any further. The woman's close family, either due to their proximity to the city or their own alcohol intake, were unable to collect her within a reasonable time. It turns out that the woman was forced to wait alone for an extended period until Dial-a-Driver was able to attend to her and drive her and her vehicle home.

Clearly, this woman breached the law, however the ability of the state to penalise her by expiation, loss of licence, or some type of penalty as directed by the court, is designed for that specific purpose. It would appear that possible vehicle impounding while having to compromise her safety by waiting by the vehicle was the product of a flawed process. So, the question is, minister: notwithstanding the breach, how does the process which ensued promote public safety, given that a young woman was put in a situation where she had little reasonable choice but to wait alone, for an extended period, by her vehicle, or have that vehicle impounded?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I normally prefer the police to comment on operational matters unless the question is absolutely stupid. That silly young girl put herself in that position. If that silly young woman had not been drinking and driving, she would not have been in that position. I mean, hello. If that were my son or daughter, I would be ropeable with them; they are the ones that put themselves in that position. What did you expect us to do? Tow them home, or ferry them home as a service?

Young South Australians are dying on our roads because they are drinking and driving. We have to work day and night, literally, to enforce the message that it is both illegal and putting yourself and others in serious danger, by driving over the limit of alcohol. That silly young woman—and she is a silly young woman—put herself in that position: the police did not.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, minister. I understand what you are saying, to some extent. However, the question is: why was the woman made to stay there alone—a young woman in an unprotected area—for that period of time? I do not argue with what you have said about her behaviour; that is not the issue for me. The issue is that she was left there alone.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It is the issue, but the police have a job to do. They are not personal security guards or dial a nanny or something like that. I would be very surprised if the police would have left that young woman if they felt that she was in any imminent danger. They must have been reasonably confident that she was safe where she was, in a car that would be locked. I just say, let us not beat up on the people who are trying their best to stop stupid behaviour. That young woman has learnt her lesson and, I think, in future, she will catch a taxi or catch the bus into town when she drinks.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, what is the fee for collecting an impounded vehicle and what time frame does the owner have to collect the vehicle and pay that fee?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Impounding has an administration charge of $73; towing, $232; vehicle storage, $19.40 per day. A standard fee for a 28-day impoundment is $848.20. For clamping, we charge $30.75; to attach a clamp to and remove the clamp from a vehicle, $73 plus 88¢ for every kilometre travelled to the clamp site, each way. A standard fee for clamping is $176.75 plus 88¢ per kilometre to and from the clamping site.

We are endeavouring to cost recover because these guys have impounded a truckload of cars. We would be the biggest car yard in the state. Over 5,000 vehicles have been impounded since this law came into play. I have got to tell you, she was having a fair old hit on the budget bottom line there. I know that, as treasurer, and now as police minister, we are keen to start recovering that.

Here is a story for the journos hanging out for a story. Since the government introduced laws that took effect on 31 October 2010, 5,041 cars have been impounded across South Australia. Of those, 4,130 were impounded in the Adelaide metro area and the remaining 911 were across the other nine regional sites. Also, to date, there have been 292 vehicles clamped across all of SAPOL's local service areas. That is a serious piece of public policy, of law, that is getting these idiots and these hoons off the streets.

Mr PENGILLY: Just as a follow-up to that question then, minister, and your answer: what numbers of vehicles do the police currently have impounded as at 30 June, if you are able to answer that, and what income has SAPOL derived from the sale of those vehicles?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Sorry. You asked how many cars we have impounded. I just answered it.

Mr PENGILLY: How many do you currently have impounded, as at 30 June, and what revenue has been raised, either for SAPOL or Treasury, through the sale of impounded vehicles?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We keep them for 28 days. If the owner does not come back for them because they are a pile of crap we dispose of them; they have no value.

Mr MARSHALL: Is that the technical automotive term?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, it is, commonly used. So you do not really get much dough out of them. What, of course, you may be thinking of, too, is the ability our police now have to confiscate assets of people with unexplained wealth. My guess is you are probably likely to get some very valuable cars out of that exercise.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, I am quite happy for you to take the question on notice, but we would like to know the amount of revenue.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Sure.

Mr PENGILLY: Where that goes. Does it go to victims of crime, does it go into SAPOL income or where does it go? Can you come back with that?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will get you that, but this is not an income-generating exercise.

Mr PENGILLY: I realise that.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It costs us a lot of money. We have to lease facilities, I guess, and physically manhandle—the labour cost in this exercise is very high, so we are endeavouring to cost recover on it, but we will come back to you with that information.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you.

Mr MARSHALL: As a supplementary to that question, minister, your advice to the woman was that she should have waited in the car intoxicated. My understanding of the law is that you cannot be in the car if you are intoxicated. Can you provide some clarification on that law?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I do not want to be demonstrating my superior legal knowledge to you, because we are both at different points of our career: I have had one, you have not, and I hope that that remains the case for some time. That's not true, the law is you cannot attempt to start a vehicle if you are intoxicated.

Mr MARSHALL: So you can be in the vehicle when you are intoxicated?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, as long as you are not trying to drive it. You can be a passenger as well, don't forget. You can be drunk sitting next to a sober driver.

Mr MARSHALL: So you can sit in the driver's seat—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Drive or attempt to drive.

Mr PENGILLY: Was she in the driver's seat or in the passenger seat?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: How do I know? You are the one asking the question.

Mr PENGILLY: I am quite happy for you to take it on notice.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: How could I take that on notice? I don't know; you are the one with the story. I don't know whether she was in the driver's seat. She might have been asleep in the boot for all I know. Crikey! Just tell the young woman not to drive drunk. Hello? It ain't a hard one to work out.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, that is not the question. The question from the member for Norwood is really quite relevant, Chair. The question was, if the woman had an alcohol reading over .05 or whatever, was she in the driver's seat where she could actually drive the car or was she in the passenger seat? Do the police require her to be in the passenger seat or—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have to tell you, you are the one asking the question. You seem to have intimate knowledge.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, you won't answer it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: How do I know whether she was in the bloody driver's seat?

Mr PENGILLY: Find out.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: Ring up the commissioner.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Finniss! We are now moving into the realms of the known unknowns, or the unknown known unknowns. I do not understand—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would hope—

The CHAIR: Order! I do not quite understand how the minister can provide more information about a situation that you have just put to him. However, I am sure he will, perhaps afterwards, have a discussion with you about that person and try to do so.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: He is not a mind reader. Member for Finniss, any further questions on this matter?

Mr PENGILLY: I just would like the minister to come back. He probably does not even know the young lady—he may, I don't know. However, the reality is I would just like to know whether she should be in the driver's seat or the passenger seat if she has a blood alcohol reading.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: God, you are an idiot.

Mr PENGILLY: It is not a difficult question.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You are an idiot, honestly. A nice idiot.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: A nice idiot, but an idiot.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I apologise for saying that, Madam Chair; it is unlike me.

The CHAIR: Order! I think we should move on.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It is unlike me to be so rude.

The CHAIR: It is.

Mr PENGILLY: I beg your pardon?

The CHAIR: I think we should—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will ask the actual—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Sorry.

The CHAIR: Look, I am in the chair, no-one else is. Alright? I think now we are going to move onto another question. The member for Norwood.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 116. It is another revenue question that I have. It was reported recently in The Advertiser that a new expiation fee would exist for defects: $120 for minor defects and $250 for major defects. My understanding from this report is that it was going to be applied from the beginning of the 2011-12 period. In fact, the article used the example of a blown light bulb giving a $120 fine. I wonder if the minister could advise whether this has come into play and where it appears in the budget.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have no idea. I am not being flippant here, or even critical, but that is a matter for the Minister for Transport; it is actually a DTEI issue. They are the ones who deal with—

Mr MARSHALL: But is it not SAPOL who issue the defect notices?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am sure they do, but that law or regulation or fine is administered by DTEI.

Mr MARSHALL: How will these defect notices be administered given that vehicle defects are often, historically, at the discretion of the police officer without relying on definitive measurements like whether or not windscreen wiper blades are safe and so on and so forth? When there was not a fine attached to it—where you get a defect notice, fix it up and come back—now they are actually going to another revenue measure for the government and I just wonder how these will be administered fairly?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the house with an answer on that. The acting commissioner just mentioned a couple of points to me about some administrative issues with that that we are still trying to work our way around.

Mr MARSHALL: But don't they come into effect today?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am not absolutely certain, to be honest. We will find out.

Mr MARSHALL: Minister, it would be good if we could get an answer sooner rather than later because this is a revenue measure that has come into effect today and, by your own admission in the committee today, you don't know how they are going to be administered and the deputy commissioner does not know how they are going to be administered—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Hang on.

Mr MARSHALL: —in your department.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, hang on, you cannot say that.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, sorry!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: My advice is that it has, in fact, not come into effect as of today because the government is still in the process of resolving some administrative issues with that matter.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: But it is not something that the police minister or the police commissioner has responsibility for; it is a department of transport enforced measure to keep the quality of our cars up to an acceptable standard.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Madam Chair, I refer to page 101, under Performance Indicators. It is estimated that in the 2010-11 period, 227 incidents of self-harm have occurred to people within police custody. Are police staffing levels dependent on the number of people in custody at any particular time? That is, do police staffing levels increase or decrease in relation to the number of people held in custody at any one time?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will let the acting commissioner answer, but I will just say a couple of quick points: one is that you can never accuse this government of not providing substantial and increased resources to our police department. We have, every year, increased the number of sworn officers by significant numbers as well as giving increased resources right across the board. No doubt, I am sure if the police commissioner could have more resources he would and, without wanting to speak for him, I think we have a pretty well-resourced police department, but there will always be wants of more money. I will let the acting commissioner answer the specifics about that issue.

Mr BURNS: A number of factors come into play. Predominantly, it is about increased reporting and increased training for the people involved in custody management. What we have done now is there is a higher recognition of behaviour that may lead to self-harm and that gets reported as well. There is also an element of—some prisoners will attempt self-harm in order to seek bail or release into the hospital system, but ultimately the major issue here is increased reporting because of increased training and the logging of any self-harm incident, and that could be anything from a bang on the head in the cell to a cut, so that is where it is. It is nothing to do with resourcing; in fact, it is better prisoner management from SAPOL.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that response. Following on from that, is there an officer to person ratio when it comes to supervising people in custody? Is it four to one, just as an example?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Four to one? What do you want us to do? Bloody bath him, shower him and clothe him? Crikey! Rock him to sleep! Read him a book; read him a little good night story or something! We will come back to the house with that. The assistant commissioner can give us an answer.

Mr BURNS: I do not have an officer-prisoner ratio. Ours is about risk assessment and risk management. We have supervisors in charge of the cells' areas. They will bring in additional people for the management of the cells if they need them dependent on the number of prisoners, because a whole range of factors come into play as well. You may have a range of compliant prisoners but, on the other hand, you may have prisoners who are highly volatile, which would need additional police resources as guards. In short, there is no ratio number: it is more about risk management and ensuring that the right numbers are in place as a result.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Of the 227, do you have any statistics that give information advising whether any of those prisoners, people in custody, require medical treatment or hospital treatment?

Mr BURNS: I do not have the figures. I am sure that I can get those figures out of session for you. There were no deaths in custody over this financial year. What I would say is that the significantly vast majority are very minor injuries, and I am not sure whether they actually needed hospital treatment or treatment at the scene.

Mr MARSHALL: My next question, again, relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, and, again, page 116. I want specifically to refer to another revenue measure in this budget, that is, roadside registration checks. Roadside registration checks are again carried out by police using advanced wireless equipment to immediately check vehicle registration status using vehicle numberplate details.

The current expiation fee for driving an unregistered vehicle is $258 and $517 for driving an uninsured vehicle. There has been quite a bit of media coverage recently on what happened when Western Australia moved to that same system that we are implementing here, with twice as many Western Australians being caught with unregistered vehicles. Has the minister received any advice regarding what impacts the implementation of this scheme in SA will have on expiation revenue?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I guess that if the Western Australian experience is anything to go by, it will have a positive impact. I can tell you that, during my time as treasurer with the Motor Accident Commission, one of the biggest problems the Motor Accident Commission faced was the number of unregistered and uninsured cars, and that has a direct impact on the cost and efficiency of our comprehensive third party scheme.

The more unregistered vehicles we can get off the road or get registered the better; so, if this has the effect of doubling the amount of fines, I would have thought that is a good thing. There is, unfortunately, an unacceptable number of unregistered cars in the state.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarification, though, the old system required a label on the car. I think that maybe the opinion within the public is that, by taking that off, you do not have that visual reminder every time you get in the car. You get one notice and it gets lost, and so on and so forth, and you are going to be fined. This is certainly the experience in Western Australia. It is not as if suddenly there was a massive, intentional—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Hang on. These are questions that you should direct to the Minister for Transport. That is a DTEI decision. Our officers, in part, enforce it, but this was a policy decision of the transport portfolio.

Mr MARSHALL: I would say that it is probably cabinet, because it is another revenue-raising measure.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, it was cabinet, and it was the treasurer of the day, me. But, in terms of its operations, you will need to ask the transport minister.

Mr MARSHALL: So, that money would become revenue for DTEI?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, it goes into Consolidated Account.

Mr MARSHALL: My next question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 89, and it relates to Adelaide's night-time entertainment precincts, specifically the objective of the Public Safety Program to manage major events. Late-night CBD entertainment precincts have received focused police attention throughout busy periods. One such example, of course, is Hindley Street. Has SAPOL provided any advice to the minister on the need for additional lighting and temporary toilets in Hindley Street for busy periods?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Not from recollection. This government actually tried to make a closing hour for our pubs and clubs, which the Liberal Party rejected. So, we would have less of a problem—

Mr MARSHALL: This question relates specifically to busy periods, which would be from 4 o'clock to—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —in Hindley Street if the Liberal Party was prepared to back this government's adjustment to closing hours—it did not.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, but this relates specifically to busy periods.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I cannot recall the police commissioner asking me for more toilets. In fact, I cannot even envisage a situation where the police commissioner would ask me for more toilets, to be honest.

Mr MARSHALL: It is commonplace in other busy entertainment precincts around the country, for example, Kings Cross, where weekend evenings are treated as major events, with the provision of additional facilities to cater for these busy periods. Does the minister concur that the provision of additional facilities (lighting and toilets) in precincts such as Hindley Street could curb anti-social behaviour?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We are looking at this issue. The Minister for Gambling, and liquor licensing, minister Gago, has responsibility for this area. Our police have given advice as to what they think should be done. A lot of this is up to the Adelaide City Council and regulations and traders. Yes, more lighting would be good. Dealing with dark alleys would be sensible. But these are not matters for which the police have responsibility, these are, for the most part, the responsibility of the Adelaide City Council and individual premise owners. As for toilets, I do not think there was a specific recommendation on toilets, but I will go back and have a look.

Mr MARSHALL: I accept that you are saying that it is the Adelaide City Council's responsibility, but the specific link was to major events. The police do provide these facilities (lighting and additional public toilets) for major events. In other jurisdictions, people would refer to busy periods on existing streets as a major event, as they do in Kings Cross, and I am just wondering whether this is something that the minister would consider?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No. This is a very surprising response from me, but the police are not in the business of providing public toilets. I am prepared to go so far as to state that under this government our police will not be responsible for the provision of public toilets.

Mr MARSHALL: It is about managing safety at major events. You have a program specifically called the Public Safety Program and it deals with major events.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have taken a bold move here to state a policy without consulting the Premier or cabinet, but I am not going to require police to deliver portable loos to events. That does remain the responsibility of event organisers and I think that is where that responsibility should remain. The people running an event, they do that, they get the toilets.

Mr MARSHALL: We are not talking about running an event, we are talking about managing the safety of people on Hindley Street and other major—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am not going to have our coppers rock up towing a bloody portaloo. Give me a break! They have enough to do without having to clean toilets.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, minister.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 88. I note that the Murray Bridge Police Station has a budget of $7.2 million in the 2011-12 year. Can you provide some detail relating to, I presume, the rebuilding of that police station?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We are doing it.

Mr PENGILLY: Public Works next week.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Public Works next week, your colleague said to us. I am sure he has the submission. You can have a look at it after the meeting.

Mrs VLAHOS: The 20^th.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The chair just said the 20^th, so he will have the submission for you. It is a significant upgrade. There is a big population growth; that is interesting. In 2001, there were 14,000 people in the Murray Bridge area and surrounding districts. It is now 20,000; in eight years. That is quite impressive.

We are going to build a new police station which will accommodate expanding policing requirements. It will have a public reception area and interview rooms, accommodation for police patrols and secure parking for patrol vehicles, criminal justice section accommodation, criminal investigation branch accommodation, forensic crime scene laboratory and office, traffic police patrols, administrative staff, conference room, cell complex with secure imprisonment management facilities designed to comply with current custodial management standards and compliant with deaths in custody coronial recommendations, exhibit and drug storage facilities, meal rooms, locker rooms and showers. There is no mention of toilets. You can have your own toilets. I am not going to stop you having your own toilets.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You've got to have some.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think Denis has taken me literally there. He only went for the locker room and showers. No; you can have your own toilets.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: When is it due to be finished?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: October 2012.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And it is on budget and on track?

Mrs VLAHOS: It hasn't started yet.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We have to give it a chance to run over budget. It has not had that chance yet. Let us hope it doesn't.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 56 of Budget Paper 6 and the budget measures statement. I note that there will be a total of $4.2 million of savings lost in the 2011-12 financial period due to the delays in the previous budget period in limiting court-awarded costs against police and introducing court enforcement fees. Minister, can you outline the reasons for the delays?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We had to get legislation through the house which went through the other night, and you have given me a good segue. Some of the debate that was in this place the other night about court-awarded costs, particularly coming from the Leader of the Opposition, I guess as a former lawyer, I thought was quite disappointing in terms of reflecting on the police as if they would somehow, under this new regime, take less care in terms of cases they bring to prosecution because they are not going to have court-awarded costs attached to them in a magistrates court.

I thought that was quite inappropriate and unfair and a slight on our prosecutorial people in police, but that was a delay in that legislation. It is in and we have to adjust the accounts accordingly until we start to get the revenue impact of that decision.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to the construction of the new road safety school on page 57 of the budget measures statement. It is proposed that the training roadway will be within Bonython Park and is being considered as part of the Adelaide council's proposed Bonython Park activity hub. We understand that the track is scheduled for completion in October. The question is: has the activity hub proposal been finalised and therefore the track construction approved?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As you said, it is an Adelaide City Council initiative. You will have to ask them, I guess, or is it ours? We are relocating it and the little kiddies' track will be—I rode at the old one as a kid. Did you?

Mr PENGILLY: A long time ago.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: A little three-wheeler, from memory; they would not give me a two-wheeler. On 16 December 2010, representatives from SAPOL and DTEI building management workshopped the preferred proposal to locate the mock roadway in the adjoining Bonython Park with members of the Adelaide City Council and the Adelaide Park Lands Authority—that august body that keeps our Parklands free from permanent grandstands for V8 supercars. Apparently we have in-principle agreement for the proposal, and the draft concept design was presented on 19 January. We are getting there. We expect that the new mock roadway will be built by 2012 and the entire facility completed by December 2012.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What has the financial input been from the government and do you have any information on what that input has been from the council as well?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: For the kiddies' roadway?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: For the new road safety school.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Capital investment budget of $3.55 million. That is state government, I am not sure what the council is putting in; probably a lot less, obviously, as is normally the case.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And you have not got the figure for what the council is putting in?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No; we are the state government. You would have to ask that of the council. We do not have the number here.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Has the construction of the classroom and administration facilities, which is part of the Road Safety School, at the Thebarton Police Barracks started?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We are still getting Development Assessment Commission approval.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Any idea how long the process may run?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No; quick as possible—promise. Have you run out of questions, you lot?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No; we have got heaps.

Mr PENGILLY: We will keep you here all day if you like.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: How about testing me?

Mr PENGILLY: That's coming (not this one, though). I refer page 32 of the Capital Investment Statement, the existing project of hi-tech crime fighting equipment. I note that the completion of the project has been pushed out by a year to the June quarter of 2013. What are the reasons for the delay in completion?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, I think we have to admit publicly that we have had a rethink on the issue of Star Chase. I think it is a bit like a dog chasing a car, and what you would do if the dog catches the car. Like most things involving computers, we have abandoned the Star Chase process; we have already publicly announced that. For the $2.625 million for portable fingerprint scanners, we have $2 million in this year and $625,000 the following year. We have developed a scoping paper on it. A project team will be set up to determine the specifications of the device. This will assist in establishing time frames for legislation changes that are required. There is $850,000 for handheld MDTs.

Mr PENGILLY: What are they?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Mobile data terminals, of course. We are currently at the research of market prices for software and hardware stage. This research is required before going to tender. For one million automated numberplate recognition mobile cameras, preliminary planning is under way. Staff are to be identified as part of a working party for the ongoing implementation of the project. It is well and truly underway.

Mr PENGILLY: Given that the Star Chase trial has been cancelled, will that money be saved within the police budget or redirected elsewhere?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Redirected.

Mr PENGILLY: In its 2010 state election policy, the state government committed $7.89 million for state-of-the-art police equipment. Of the $7.89 million how much was dedicated to Star Chase before it was abandoned?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Only a small amount, I think—$250,000.

Mr PENGILLY: Finally, has the minister received any independent recommendations relating to the suitability of Star Chase within South Australia specifically (understanding that has been dumped)?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I tell you what, I did not get any independent advice, because we do not do that. I take the advice of my trusted senior officers. Fortuitously, acting commissioner Gary Burns saw it himself, and my guess is that, once he saw it, he was not overly excited by it. The acting commissioner will be quite happy to give us his observations.

Mr BURNS: I had a look at it when it was demonstrated in Arizona. It is a piece of equipment that is pretty much like a small mortar placed on the front grille of a vehicle. It is activated either remotely by the operator, or through the vehicle. You have to be within 20 feet of the vehicle you are chasing for it to hit, and then it is connected by a combination of a magnetic and adhesive device, and from that point on it can track, and it does track well. The difference for us is that the pursuit policies in the United States are very much different from the pursuit policies we have in South Australia. To place a police vehicle in South Australia 20 feet behind a vehicle that is fleeing police is dangerous.

The other aspect is that this was still a prototype when used by the Arizona Bureau of Safety; they had used it about nine times, at that stage, on one vehicle (a V8 pick-up truck). For us, the issue is that we drive Commodores, and we actually turn our Commodores over at about every 60,000 kilometres. Some of the American vehicles are up around the 200,000 mile mark and are still operating, so there would be huge fit-out costs to continually change these over every operational police fleet.

Having a look at it and considering the safety, the piece of equipment itself, and how it would apply in South Australia, the determination was made that it was not suitable. So, we are now speaking with the minister about trying to obtain similar types of benefit through other technology to assist in pursuits.

Mr PENGILLY: Thanks very much. Minister, I refer to page 87 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Budgeted FTEs. How many FTEs does the minister estimate will be lost in natural attrition in the 2011 financial period?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the committee on that.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, to the best of your knowledge of police statistics shown within the annual reports, and used by the government media, what is the definition of 'natural attrition' within the police workforce?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Someone leaving, I would have though. Retirement.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And resignation?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Resignations and retirement, the odd person we might have flicked.

Mr PENGILLY: Further on that same page: how many sworn police officers are currently off on WorkCover, and how many of these are claims which have arisen inside the current financial year; that is, ending yesterday, 30 June 2011?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the committee with that.

Mr PENGILLY: How many new claims arose throughout the preceding four financial years?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the committee with that statistical information.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you. How many sworn police officers are currently on leave considered to be work-related stress leave, and how does that figure compare with 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007? You might want to come back with that one.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will go back and have a look at that.

Mr PENGILLY: How many sworn South Australian police officers are UK recruits?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, we will come back to the committee with that.

Mr PENGILLY: And, as a follow-up to that question, has there been a higher resignation rate pro rata from the UK recruits than from South Australians?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will ask the acting commissioner to respond.

Mr BURNS: There is a higher attrition rate with UK recruits.

Mr PENGILLY: There is?

Mr BURNS: Yes. I think the attrition rate is around about 20 per cent when you take the first course out, which were recruited in a compacted time period. What I would say is, whilst we had an attrition rate higher than local attrition with UK recruits, because they are coming in with three to five years' experience with a shorter training course, you are able to put people onto the streets and into operational policing very quickly.

Some of these people have obviously gone home; they have family issues or they have had economic issues at home. Others have actually gone into other employment within South Australia and Australia, so they remain within the Australian employment demographic. So, in terms of value, we think there is still significant value to SAPOL with UK recruiting.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, how many United Kingdom officers have been recruited this financial year, and how many for the preceding four financial years?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will get to that information. We are currently in the market in the United Kingdom at present. The reality is—and this is a debate we had when I was last police minister, and it was the right decision of government—that in a tight labour market, availability of labour is scarcer.

One thing you can do is lower the standards of the officer or the person who you are prepared to accept to come into the force, or you look for labour elsewhere in the market. The commissioner was absolutely rock solid and firm, and I fully supported it, that we would not allow a reduction in the quality or the standards that we expect.

To fill vacancies, we have gone to the United Kingdom. It has been a terrifically important exercise, I think, for ensuring (a) we get the growth in numbers in the police force—the largest it has ever been. Secondly, I am a strong believer that immigration is a good thing. Skilled immigration in particular, is a very good thing.

As the acting commissioner just said, a lot of these police officers are incredibly experienced and the ability to add value to the organisation more broadly is quite significant. The experiences that non-UK officers are learning from UK officers is very important. We will always prefer to recruit locally if we can, but, if there are labour market difficulties, as there are at present, we will look to the United Kingdom because they are a good-quality copper.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you for that. Minister, over the past four years, what has been the net recruitment rate of UK officers, taking natural attrition and other attrition into account?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As of 12 April 2011, a total of 517 UK officers have been recruited. Of these, 143 have separated. The overall attrition rate of UK recruits is 27.7 per cent. Of the 143 separations, 44 are from the March 2005 UK course. That was the first one, as the commissioner said. That was the first one and people were coming in, I guess, with eyes a bit glazed in terms of their reasons for coming. But if you exclude that first course, the attrition rate is 22.8 per cent, compared with the local attrition rate of 10.3 per cent.

Mr PENGILLY: Just finally on this one, have SAPOL changed their selection criteria or have they made potential police officers coming from the UK more aware of the conditions and circumstances in South Australia? Do they provide enough peer support? I do not disagree with you. I have met a number of the UK officers, but the attrition rate would seem to be concerning.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will ask the commissioner to respond to that because he has had a lot of intimate experience with this.

Mr BURNS: If we go back to the first UK course, we wanted to get police in fairly quickly to make up numbers. We had quite a large take up within the United Kingdom. We went over, did the selections and came back. Then, post that time, quite a number left because of economic reasons. The global financial crisis kicked in in 2008. Some of them had not sold houses. Some of them actually took leave without pay from their own forces to come out here and work, with the intention of working for two or three years and maybe moving on.

What we have done since that time is learn our lessons from the initial recruitment there, and we have continued to learn those lessons in the subsequent recruitment periods. So, we have a very strong support network. We make contact through the internet and intranet. Originally UK-based recruits now go over with our recruiting team when we go to the United Kingdom, so they can explain everything and the conditions, etc., over here. Since that time, whilst the attrition rate is higher than local, it has been a far better process for us. Obviously, you can see it has reduced the attrition rate from that first course.

Mr PENGILLY: So, the process, you think, has been improved to the extent where we will not have these accelerating attrition rates?

Mr BURNS: I think it has been improved significantly. I think that there is always the potential that UK attrition will be higher than local attrition, simply because family, friends and their houses are back in the UK and some get homesick. It is not even them necessarily that are getting homesick but their own families that get homesick.

When you look at the experience they bring—they generally have three to five years' operational experience. That was one of the other things we learnt. The first UK course actually had some people of significant rank, inspectors and sergeants. They probably came out here with higher expectations. Now we are really looking around the constable mark so that they understand that they will become part of our qualification framework and progress through our police force. Like I said, I think it will be above the local recruitment rate but, as you have seen, it is now far lower than the original course.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, I ask the question without actually knowing, but I presume that there are relocation costs put in place for these UK officers as part of the package to get them here. If that is the case, is there a mechanism to reclaim some of those, what would be considerable costs?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We do not assist them with relocation costs.

Mr PENGILLY: You don't?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No.

Mr PENGILLY: End of story. Thank you.

Mr MARSHALL: My next question refers to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 95, and deals specifically with Sub-program 2.1: Personal Crime. 'This sub-program includes targeting crimes against the person such as robbery, serious assault and sexual offences.' Through you, minister, I would like to ask the assistant commissioner whether he could advise the committee whether he has ever experienced a person intentionally identifying the wrong person in a photo line-up in order to scuttle a court case?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Say that again. That obviously referred to me. I was looking at something else. Repeat that, please.

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, the question is through you to the assistant commissioner. Has the commissioner in his experience—

Mr SIBBONS: What budget line is that on?

Mr MARSHALL: It is 2.1: Personal Crime; I announced that, page 95. I can read it out again if you did not hear it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am happy to take it, because it was a cheap shot, but let's hear it. Ask it again.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, minister.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have a point of order. He cannot direct a question to the commissioner, whether it is through the minister or not. He needs to direct the question to the minister.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mrs Vlahos): Member for Little Para, can you speak into your microphone because there seem to be some issues.

Mr ODENWALDER: My simple point of order was that he needs to direct the question to the minister. He cannot direct a question to the assistant commissioner through the minister.

The ACTING CHAIR: This is in fact true, member for Little Para, and I would uphold that. Would you like to rephrase that question?

Mr MARSHALL: Yes, I am happy to rephrase it. Has the minister or any of his officers ever experienced a person intentionally identifying the wrong person in a photo line-up in order to scuttle a court case?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I did not hear that either. What was it again?

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, minister.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I heard the second half. I am just reading a fascinating story about—

Mr MARSHALL: Has the minister or any of his officers ever experienced a person intentionally identifying the wrong person in a photo line-up in order to scuttle a court case?

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Norwood—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, I am going to respond to that, because that—

The CHAIR: Minister, you may respond but, member for Norwood, what budget line does that relate to?

Mr MARSHALL: Madam Chair, it relates to Budget Paper 4—

The CHAIR: I do not quite see how that relates to the budget. Surely that is an operational matter.

Mr MARSHALL: Can I explain?

The CHAIR: Yes, please do.

Mr MARSHALL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Page 95, Sub-program 2.1: Personal Crime. It states quite clearly in these budget papers that the objective of this program is:

The sub-program includes targeting crimes against the person such as robbery, serious assault and sexual offences. The aim is to achieve a reduction in the incidence and effects of crimes against the person.

The CHAIR: If the minister chooses to answer that, he may, but I will put it on the record that I think that is straying outside the remit of this particular committee.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam Chair, it is a grubby, grubby question. The inference of this person's question is that I deliberately misidentified a person.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, there is no inference.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, I am answering this question, member for Norwood, and I know exactly where you are going with this. You are implying under parliamentary privilege—because you would not have the courage to walk outside this chamber, and you are saying and implying quite deliberately—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, there is no point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: There is a point of order. You are implying improper motives about the member for Norwood.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Absolutely.

Mr PENGILLY: That is against the standing orders.

The CHAIR: Order! I can understand what the minister is saying on this particular point and, as I have said previously, I do think that you are straying outside the remit of this committee. The minister has chosen to answer this question. I really do not think that he should be forced to do so in any way, shape or form. You do not have a point of order, member for Finniss, and if the minister wishes to continue he may. Having said that, he does not need to. That is my ruling on the point of order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Thank you. Can I say that if the member for Norwood—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Don't raise frivolous points of order.

Mr PENGILLY: Madam Chair, it is clearly in the standing orders of this parliament that implying improper motives against another member is out of order, and that is what the minister is doing.

The CHAIR: And that rule follows for everyone, not just the minister, all right? There are inferences here that I don't like that have been made by the member for Norwood and I have said to him twice now that I do not think that they are really within the remit of this committee. He has, however, asked them. The minister has chosen to answer them. There is no further point of order. I have ruled on that. If the minister wishes to continue he may.

Mr PENGILLY: Can I—

The CHAIR: If you want to continue, member for Finniss, to disagree with the chair, you know that that is in itself unparliamentary. Okay? So I think we should just carry on. If you have another point of order, so be it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I say to the member for Finniss I have just been slurred. I want the chance and I will get the chance to rebut. If you want to cover up for your mate, do so, but I think you have a bit more character when, at least, it comes to me. That was an unacceptable slur at me. If you want to become a minister, member for Norwood, my advice would be do it on performance of quality and of stature; don't try and get there by mudraking and abusing this chamber, and vilifying an individual.

I made a selection with police officers videotaping that. I had two sworn senior police officers overseeing my selection of the person and I am not going to reveal the content of any advice or discussions I have received since that point, but I did receive a letter from a very senior non-police officer that identified the difficulty in prosecutions where a person has difficulty in identifying a person.

I desperately wanted that matter to go to trial, because any of us in public life, whether it is me or the opposition, at 9.30 on a Saturday evening when leaving a formal function with a friend going to what we considered to be a tapas bar of quality, not a nightclub—for me to be physically assaulted and threatened by three individuals was an unacceptable risk for a public figure.

One day you might be a minister and one day you might find yourself in a similar situation. All I say is if you want to become a minister do it on your ability, don't do it by dragging me down into the gutter.

The CHAIR: Are there any further questions on the budget line in question: the budget line?

Mr MARSHALL: Can I just make a point of clarification. I was in no way implying anything in the question. There has been considerable discussion, both in the parliament and also in the public, regarding police line-ups.

The CHAIR: What is your point of order?

Mr MARSHALL: It is a point of clarification.

The CHAIR: You are not making a point of order. What point of clarification?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We know exactly what you were saying and let's leave it at that.

Mr PENGILLY: Madam Chair, I have got another question.

The CHAIR: Another question, excellent, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: I refer to the Statement of comprehensive income on page 107 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3. The estimated long service leave expense for 2010-11 is $18.75 million. The government changed the law before the last South Australian election to allow public servants to cash in their long service leave. That included members of SAPOL. My first question is how many applications have been made since that time to cash out long service leave and how many applicants are considered front-line officers?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We do not have that information with us; we will come back to the house.

Mr PENGILLY: Have you had communications with the Department of Treasury and Finance, formal or otherwise, with regard to the application of a long service leave cashing-out arrangement?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Have I had advice?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I made the policy, my guess is. We will come back to the house.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you. Minister, have you had any discussions with the Police Association regarding the same matter?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We have just concluded an enterprise bargaining agreement, and various matters were raised in that process.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 88 and the second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers initiative. Can the minister provide an update on the situation of the revised Second-hand Goods Bill?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the house with that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Consultation on the draft legislation closed on 28 May 2011. Are you able to advise the committee how many submissions were received by SAPOL concerning the consultation process?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The commissioner has just advised me that he actually signed off details of the consultation to me yesterday in a file, and I have not seen it as yet.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Do you have any idea how long it may be until the bill is introduced into parliament?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It would be a few months off yet, I guess. We have to take the consultation on board and consider it and take it back to cabinet.

Mr PENGILLY: I refer to page 89 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3 and the expenses of the Public Safety Program. What incentives or subsidies does the department offer to police officers required to rent or purchase housing in regional areas?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We do have a subsidy scheme for people in regional areas. We have redefined some of those boundaries of late. We will come back to the house with those.

Mr PENGILLY: I refer to the same page, Madam Chair. Since the announcement that police housing would be sold off within a 100-kilometre radius of Adelaide, how many properties occupied by members of SAPOL have been sold?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We would not have that information with us. We will come back to the house with that.

Mr PENGILLY: I refer to page 87 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, and the FTEs of SAPOL. Is attracting police to regional South Australia a significant issue for the department?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I guess that is a fairly broad-ranging question. The acting commissioner has been a serving officer for sometime; he might be able to give us an idea as to whether it has got easier or harder—I guess, harder.

Mr BURNS: We have had difficulties in filling some small stations, in particular. Obviously, we deal with a different workforce now, and you would see it right throughout society where there is a general intent to stick in large metropolitan, city-based areas. What we have done is to offer incentives (level 1, level 2, level 3 incentives) and, as a result, that has significantly reduced the number of vacancies.

Mr PENGILLY: How many vacancies currently exist in regional South Australia in SAPOL?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We have an answer.

Mr PENGILLY: I thought you might have.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As at 31 March 2011, 65 country positions (7.9 per cent) were vacant and subject to a selection or transfer process; 15 sworn officer positions have been vacant for six months or more and 10 are proving difficult to fill; and four positions have remained vacant whilst they are subject to an organisational review. These four positions may well be restructured to provide assistance at other country locations.

Mr PENGILLY: In March this year (same page) the shadow minister (Hon. David Ridgway) from another faraway place raised concerns about the lack of a police officer at the one-officer Kalangadoo station. Are any one-officer stations currently unstaffed?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: There may be; we will come back to the house on that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 86, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3 and administered items for unclaimed property. Do you have any information in relation to the revenue generated from unclaimed property sold throughout the budget year, and do you have a budgeted amount for this coming year, 2011-12 year?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I do not think you could budget for unclaimed property. We may, but I would be surprised if we did.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Or an approximation?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will have a look at that question and come back to you.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 105 of the same budget paper, under the heading of Performance Indicators. I note it is estimated that 4,200 actions were taken in the 2010-11 period in response to traffic watch complaints. Can you outline the typical actions of SAPOL which follow a traffic watch complaint?

Mr BURNS: There are a number of courses of action. Once the complaint comes in, if there is insufficient information it might be filed, in other matters it would go out to local service areas for further follow up and then there could be cautionary notices issued to the driver involved, and in some instances they can be arrested, reported or an expiation notice issued.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Do you have a list of what the top 10 offences would be?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We will come back to the committee with that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 99 of the same budget paper, Performance Indicators. I note that there are currently approximately 609 active Neighbourhood Watch groups. Does the minister believe that with the ageing population there is an increasing level of difficulty in attracting new or younger members to these groups?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As an active member of parliament I guess we would have as good an understanding of this as the police themselves would have—no question. In an ageing society with more and more competing interests these things become more difficult to manage, but I think we have had a refresh program in recent years of how we do Neighbourhood Watch. It is difficult, yes.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Are there any resources dedicated to promoting Neighbourhood Watch groups with a view to boosting membership?

Mr BURNS: We have a state crime prevention branch, which has a specific section within it dedicated to Neighbourhood Watch and the support of all Neighbourhood Watch areas, and then within every local service area we have a crime prevention section and within those sections their role is to develop and assist Neighbourhood Watch groups, provide support to those groups and, as I said, where areas are flagging to provide some support to them as well to see what we can do. So, there are dedicated officers within SAPOL designed to assist Neighbourhood Watch.

Mr PENGILLY: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 97, Sub-program 2.3: Illegal Drugs. This is a parochial electorate issue. I am, and I know that many members of government agencies, schools, SAPOL, it goes on, are deeply concerned about the rising levels of drugs, particularly the use of drugs by young people. It is probably not only particular to my electorate, but I am horrified that school children on Kangaroo Island are being exposed to methamphetamines and increasing amounts of cannabis. I know that the level of availability of methamphetamines on the South Coast is high.

I am also very conscious that the police would not want to let too much information out on what they are doing about this. However, it is of terrible concern to me, as a member of parliament, and to the community that drug availability is increasing and that these ferals who peddle drugs are getting away with it. Personally, I would like to see some aspects of sharia law brought in: chopping a few hands off. Through you, minister, and the commissioner may want to answer it, but I would like to know how the acting commissioner views this.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am sure that the commissioner would view it very seriously, that goes without saying. I know you are not saying that, and I am happy for the commissioner to speak, but I have a few words on that. Both as a parent and as a police minister, drugs in our society are a terrible scourge and there is no question that it reminds me that, for all the work and effort you do in one area of drugs, you see another substance arrive into the so-called market.

Methamphetamines, the tablets, I guess, are the most insidious of the lot because they are so easily taken. I guess kids say, 'Well, I don't spend all night drinking beer; I just pop a pill and it's an easier way to get a high,' but of course these things are made in backyards with no quality control. Kids have died from them and of course any drug has the potential and often does lead to uses of more potent and deadlier drugs. This parliament passes a lot of laws. The courts, it would be fair to say in my observation, do not enforce the full range of penalties that the parliament provides a court with. It would be nice if, at times, the parliament's wish in terms of legislative penalties were more reflected in outcomes in the courts.

The efforts we are taking to deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs is very much centred on trying to attack the problem at the source. It is public knowledge that a large proportion of our drug trade in this state is pushed and peddled and manufactured by outlaw motorcycle gangs, so I would look forward to the opposition supporting the government in this place to improve our bikie laws that we have to bring back as a result of High Court successful challenges to make sure that we can continue to put maximum pressure on the bikies to the point of forcing them into dissolving their organisations. I will ask the assistant commissioner if he would like to add anything.

Mr BURNS: SAPOL takes drugs very seriously. In fact, drugs are a major driver, if not the most significant driver, of volume crime. To feed habits, people break into houses and steal cars, etc. We come at it from a number of angles. You have your local service areas. You would have seen the other day that a significant drug arrest was brought about by a traffic stop, and that has happened quite a number of times, so we focused on—

Mr PENGILLY: 72 kilos.

Mr BURNS: That's right. A number of those large-sized pinches have come about through police doing traffic stops, so we have made sure that the general duties police are aware of that. In the local service areas, they are also supported by Operation Mantle teams and there are about six to eight uniform and detectives in those teams and they look at low-level to medium-level drug dealers. If you get the users, you would be able to work up to the suppliers. They are in the metropolitan local service areas but each one of those is available to some of the country local service areas in support of their operations. For instance, Elizabeth helps Port Augusta. Then you have your state area which is the Drug Investigations Branch looking at higher-level drug dealing, etc.

That is a brief summary of the operational side, the enforcement side, but we also have the crime prevention areas and the drug action teams sergeants. The drug action teams liaise with a whole range of youth and other services, and their predominant task is to reduce the use of drugs, explain the harm that drugs cause and ultimately are an education-type group, notwithstanding that we are involved with a whole range of other government agencies and non-agencies in terms of the health aspects of drugs.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Can I just also add, if you do not mind, Madam Chair, and not everyone will necessarily agree with this, and most often people do not agree with what I say—look at that: I knew that would happen.

The CHAIR: What?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The cameras wind up immediately. Two things happen when I say something like that: the cameras light up and my staff shit themselves.

The CHAIR: Yes, they are right behind you looking slightly ill.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: A lot of this also comes back to parental responsibility. I do not think we can ever escape the fact that, as parents, we have a responsibility to ensure that we do all we can to dissuade, educate, put the fear of God into our kids sometimes, that drugs are not for them. That said, of course, even given the most significant parental involvement with children, kids will dabble, and the best parents in the world cannot necessarily stop it.

However, I think in society today we have to remember that governments or police are not in themselves responsible for civil behaviour: that is an individual's responsibility. We cannot and should not put all the pressure or all the expectation on our police or even lawmakers in parliament to stop the scourge of drugs. It is like a lot of things in society. If parents put more diligence and more effort and more care, in many cases, into raising their children, there would not be necessarily the same number of societal problems. That is just a bit of philosophical ranting.

Mr PENGILLY: The omnibus questions are:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2010-11 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees were there as at 30 June 2011, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the employee and the Total Employment Cost (TEC) of the employee?

3. In financial year 2009-10 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2010-11, and how much was approved by cabinet?

4. Between 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2011, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each person (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more)—

(a) which has been abolished; and

(b) which has been created?

5. For the year 2010-11, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by the departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grants, and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15?

6. For all capital works projects listed in Budget Paper 5 that are the responsibility of the minister, will the minister list the total amounts spent to date on each project?

7. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages (TVSPs) will be offered for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15?

[Sitting suspended from 12:04 to 13:10]