South Australia Police, $897,376,000

Administered Items for South Australia Police, $63,000

Membership:

Mr Picton substituted for Hon. A. Piccolo.

Minister:

Hon. V.A. Tarzia, Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr G. Stevens, Commissioner, South Australia Police.

Mr S. Johinke, Director, Business Service, South Australia Police.

Mr I. Hartmann, Manager, Financial Management Services Branch, South Australia Police.

Mr J. Teakle, Chief Inspector, Governance and Capability Service, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to Estimates Committee A. The portfolio for this session is South Australia Police. The minister appearing is the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. The estimate payments is for South Australia Police and Administered Items for South Australia Police. I advise that the proposed payments for South Australia Police remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make an opening statement if he wishes and to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Good morning, members. I would like to kick off with a brief opening statement, if I may. First, I would like to introduce the officers and staff I have in the room with me this morning and then make some very brief opening remarks.

A man who requires no introduction, who is doing a sterling job at the moment, is Commissioner Grant Stevens, Commissioner of South Australia Police. Immediately behind me is Ian Hartmann, Manager, Financial Management Services Branch at SAPOL. To Ian's left is Steve Johinke, Director, Business Services at SAPOL. Behind Steve and Ian is Chief Inspector Jerome Teakle, Governance and Capability Service at SAPOL.

SAPOL's current workforce consists of approximately 6,000 police and civilian employees who provide a 24/7, 365-day policing service across metropolitan, rural and remote parts of the state, with staff operating at over 120 police stations. In the 10 years from 2010-11 to 2019-20, SAPOL has achieved a significant 6 per cent decrease in recorded crime. In 2019-20, the 4,713 FTE police commitment comprised 4,691 FTE active police, including community constables, seven specialist cybercrime staff, and 15 prosecuting solicitors.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of 2020 has been dedicated to SAPOL's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Police Operations Centre (POC) was first stood up, I am advised, on 16 March 2020, some 255 days ago, to coordinate SAPOL's response to the pandemic. The Commissioner of Police, in his capacity as the State Coordinator, declared a major emergency under the Emergency Management Act 2004 on 22 March 2020. Since that time, SAPOL has had an active role responding to COVID-19 through:

business and public activity compliance, with over 52,000 businesses checked;

quarantine and self-isolation compliance, with over 140,000 checks conducted;

24/7 border checkpoints static and roving patrols at 46 sites; and

a central assessment unit established to process cross-border travel applications, with more than 565,000 people processed since April and more than 223,000 processed by SAPOL through Adelaide Airport, hotel quarantine or medi-hotels.

Every day, SAPOL deploys between 450 and 500, sometimes more, sworn officers along with up to 200 civilian or temporary contract staff, coupled with 42 members of the State Emergency Service. Another 100 to 120 personal a day undertake work in support of COVID-19 operations.

The 2020-21 state budget committed $21.2 million over the next four years towards COVID-19 resources, which includes:

the recruitment of 72 cadets and 54 temporary PSOs;

funding for resources from the SES and CFS; and

the establishment of a Police Operations Centre at Thebarton.

The budget also includes $93.2 million in additional funding over the forward estimates to keep South Australia safe and strong, including $34.9 million for the Mobile Workforce Transformation Program. This will be implemented over the next four years to upgrade systems and establish remote connectivity for all SAPOL staff and in SAPOL vehicles. Sworn and unsworn personnel will be supplied with personal-issue mobile phones, enabling access to SAPOL systems and information anywhere at any time.

There is $8.5 million, as you have heard, sir, for multipurpose load-bearing vests. These high-tech vests are an advanced piece of personal protective equipment, providing police and protective security officers with extra safety and security during situations that involve armed offenders in possession of edged weapons and firearms. There is $6.2 million to ensure SAPOL's fixed-wing aviation capacity until early 2023 and $19.4 million for the installation and management of a fixed mobile phone detection safety camera system.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, as the lead, would you like to make a statement?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, thank you, sir, I will just make a few quick remarks. I want to echo the minister's remarks about particularly the performance of the police commissioner. I want to acknowledge that publicly. I think he has done an amazing job, as has his organisation. I think SAPOL have acquitted themselves remarkably over the last nine months in adapting to this pandemic. When you compare them with other states and some of the scenes we have seen in other states of apparently heavy-handed tactics by the police in enforcing restrictions and so on, we have not seen any of that here.

We have seen a collaborative approach. We have seen the police helping people to do the right thing when they are not doing the right thing, for the most part, and when they do not do the right thing obviously the police take the appropriate action. I think it is worth acknowledging the difference in the approach of SAPOL to that of other state police forces, and I think that reflects well on the leadership of SAPOL. With that, I would like to ask some questions, if I could, sir.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, and a budget reference to begin with, please.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will ask the member for Cheltenham to open the questioning.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, commissioner. As the local member for the Woodville area, as the member for Cheltenham, can I take this opportunity to say thank you for the work that you and your officers and associated staff have been doing with respect to the situation with the Woodville Pizza Bar. It is causing great anxiety through our community, and I know that because it is my community and I live there as well. Of course, the Woodville High School situation has presented itself in the last 12 hours. To whatever extent you can today, could you please update the committee on the situation as it currently presents?

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, I appreciate that you have asked a question in relation to your local community, and we have that on occasion already this morning.

Mr SZAKACS: Are you after a budget line?

The CHAIR: Given that you are not a member of the committee as such, this is on my indulgence, but I am happy to do that as well. However, if you can find a budget line please.

Mr SZAKACS: I would be obliged to. I refer to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 105.

The CHAIR: The questions are directed to the minister at all times. It is then up to the minister as to what he does with that question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The question was about providing an update on the developments in the last 12 hours?

The CHAIR: In relation to originally the pizza bar and, I take it, the Woodville High School more recently.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you, Chair. For clarification, more acutely the Woodville High School situation as it may present.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: With all respect, firstly, it is certainly an operational matter, but I am advised that the police are certainly working with SA Health and they are not in a position to provide an update at this point in time. But, as soon as they are, they will provide an update.

The CHAIR: That update will be public and I am hoping the member for Cheltenham is—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not trying to hinder in any way, Chair.

The CHAIR: I understand. It is the situation we are in at the moment, I guess, and I hope the member for Cheltenham is provided with that update as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: On the same budget line, minister, and we will talk about the allocation of new resources for COVID-19.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Is that Budget Paper 5, page 105?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, Budget Paper 5, page 105. I think this will necessarily bleed into more general discussions about the COVID response, but we will see how we go with that. How much of the $21.2 million outlined over the four years is for the payment of wages or training?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised approximately $6.8 million for the extra cadets. I think that was your question.

Mr ODENWALDER: This is to accelerate recruitment. Presumably that means we will see a bubble of recruits in the next little while. Does that mean in future years attrition will bring that number eventually back down to 4,713 or thereabouts? When will that be?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think the intention is to revert to the 4,713 through attrition.

Mr ODENWALDER: At what point would you expect us to reach equilibrium? In which financial year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously COVID is an ever-changing scenario, but it is subject to operational requirements. I know the member is after a definitive answer, but it is challenging to provide an exact date.

Mr ODENWALDER: What is the total number of sworn operational police officers—not cadets and not PSOs—you are expecting at 30 June next year? Presumably the recruitment bubble will hit after that.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We are just clarifying. As at 30 June 2020, active sworn, including community constables, was 4,700 0.5 FTE, and that was 9.3 FTE above the adjusted sworn FTE cap of 4,691 0.2 FTE.

Mr ODENWALDER: That was June this year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That was 30 June 2020.

Mr ODENWALDER: So 2020 that is the expected.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I notice there is an additional reliance on PSOs, and I think there is legislation on the way to change the way PSOs are treated, bringing them into the Police Act and so on, which hopefully I will get to ask some questions about at a later stage What additional functions, on top of what they already do, will be expected of PSOs in the immediate future? What is your vision as part of both this budget allocation and the legislation to be introduced?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What additional functions?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, if any—functions or powers or authorities.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: First, let me say, member for Elizabeth, that when the legislation comes before the parliament I will definitely give you a briefing. Custody management is certainly of interest and also 000 call-taking perhaps, but they are also scanning other duties. I am informed that the police will be consulting with PASA as well in that regard.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will their wage structure remain the same, or will it change as it switches to the Police Act, presumably with higher authorities?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: At this point in time, there is certainly no intention to increase authorities, but they will continue to work through that over time.

Mr ODENWALDER: So no increase in wages? No change to wages? No change to the pay structures?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Have any of the functions of either police or PSOs been outsourced to the private sector as a result of the COVID pandemic?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that there has been a supplementary resourcing plan, if you like, as a strategy to manage the continuation of the COVID-19 response. Of course, this is an ever-moving situation. To accurately forecast the duration of SAPOL's extended commitments, the member for Elizabeth would appreciate, is certainly challenging.

I am advised that the supplementary resourcing plan is being implemented and includes the following measures: to temporarily replace 28 protective security officers (PSOs) from patrol and alarm response functions within selected government establishments with contracted private security, but I understand that they are still supervised by those PSOs, and also to recruit an additional 54 PSOs to support COVID-19 operations and maintain the protective security capability of SAPOL.

Mr ODENWALDER: These are things like school patrols and that sort of thing, I guess is what we are talking about.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: What company is providing this service, or is it a group of companies? And, as a supplementary, who is paying for it? Is it coming out of the SAPOL budget?

The CHAIR: Part 2 to the question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that AG Security Group is the security company. I am also advised that SAPOL certainly are not absorbing the cost. That will be discussed with the Treasurer, along with many other continuing costs. As the member for Kaurna would appreciate, these things would be adding up.

The CHAIR: Minister, just so I am clear, they are absorbing the cost or they are not?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No, they are not.

Mr ODENWALDER: What was the recruitment process for this security company? Was there a tender process or was it a decision of the State Coordinator?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In terms of the tender and the process, I will take that on notice, but I am assured that there are existing arrangements between SAPOL and a range of private security firms already. In terms of further details about that tender and process, I am happy to take that on notice and provide it to the member at the appropriate time.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate that. Presumably PSOs are tasked with these sorts of patrols because they do receive specific training, they are armed and they are trained. What level of training do we expect from the security guards who are supposed to fulfil the same role? And further to that, who supervises them and what is the nature of that supervision?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that security companies are certainly well qualified and they do have contact with PSO supervisors. As well as that, there is a strict supervisory regime on top of it. There are certainly no gaps in service delivery that I have been advised of.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are they armed?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: They are not armed in any way? They are just people in cars and they have phones?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Qualified security officers, if they had to, would call police. PSOs may intervene potentially but they are not armed with guns, if that is what you are asking?

Mr ODENWALDER: Or with anything other than their bare hands and a mobile phone?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: They are qualified security guards—

Mr ODENWALDER: I am not a security guard, so I do not know what they carry.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —and they obviously would be suitably skilled as security guards, but they would not necessarily carry weapons.

Mr ODENWALDER: No?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not weapons.

Mr PICTON: Referring to the same budget line, what sites have these private security guard companies been used at that were previously operated by protective security officers under SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I imagine what the member is alluding to is a list I would have to take on notice. Generally speaking, I imagine school patrols, though I do not have a list in front of me.

Mr PICTON: Can you take the full list on notice?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I can take on notice where they have been.

Mr ODENWALDER: Further to that, is it the whole of the school patrol taskings that has been entirely given over to the AG group now? So PSOs do not do any of that work anymore, except in a supervisory role?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, COVID has led to an increase in demand. First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that and the great work that SAPOL are doing. I am advised that we have removed the bulk of PSOs operating at schools; however, sworn police are certainly able and ready to assist as required. That is my advice.

Mr PICTON: If one of these private security guards from the AG group encounters difficulty or sees something, what is their process? Do they report that to the AG Security Group, who then raises it with SAPOL, or do they raise it directly with SAPOL?

Mr CREGAN: How is that related to a budget line item in any way?

Mr PICTON: You can raise a point of order, if you like.

The CHAIR: The budget line that was referred to at the outset, member for Kavel, was on page 105 of the Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, relating to COVID resources.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that in terms of process, firstly, they do have the powers of a citizen. For example, like any citizen, they could perform a citizen's arrest. They also have regular communication and they also have key contacts in terms of PSO supervisors. It would obviously depend on the nature of the alleged incident, but they are in contact and have the ability to get in contact with PSO supervisors and SAPOL, if needed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Forgive my layman's terms, but are they on the same radio channels and GRN channel as the PSOs and SAPOL? Can they hear general SAPOL communications? Can PSOs, in fact?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: With all respect, we are starting to deviate into matters that are certainly very operational. I have been trying to be very helpful to the member for Elizabeth, but I think we are starting to get into operational matters when we talk about what radio frequencies and what they can and cannot hear. This could perhaps also be applied across other operations, as well. I probably cannot add anything further on that specific line of questioning. They do have the ability to and are in contact with PSO supervisors, they are able to contact SAPOL and, as I said, they do have the powers of a normal citizen—for example, in citizen's arrests.

Mr PICTON: Does AG Security Group have to provide SAPOL with a list of all security officers employed under this contract? If so, how many security officers are employed by AG Security Group for these taskings of what PSOs previously were doing?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not have those exact details, but of course probity checks are certainly undertaken, if that is where the member is potentially going.

Mr PICTON: By 'probity checks', do you mean there is a security check of each of the security officers?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I would say is that of course there is a range of measures to determine suitability to be able to work for SAPOL and the state government.

Mr PICTON: Does SAPOL know who are the individual people carrying out these functions by AG Security Group?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think I refer to my previous answer.

Mr PICTON: With respect, your previous answer did not say. I understand there are other security contracts that the state government has, and under those contracts there is a duty for that company to provide the government with a list of the people who are providing those services. I am just wondering, under this contract with AG Security Group, do they have to provide a list of all the people who are providing those services, or does the government not know who is providing those services at South Australian schools?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: There are some interjections, Chair. I ask for your protection if this continues.

The CHAIR: I might be forced, minister, to invoke the—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Yes. With all due respect, I have allowed this line of questioning for a little while, but the budget line that is open specifically relates to police resourcing through COVID-19.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair. How much money has been expended to AG Security Group for private security guards?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that we do not have that information at the moment. I am happy to provide it to the member with the proviso that any information—and I am not sure that it would be but, as long as that information is not commercial-in-confidence, I am happy to provide what we can to the member.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. Have South Australian schools been made aware of this arrangement with AG Security Group?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The question was: were schools aware? My advice is that the CEO of the education department has been advised, as well as briefed, about this arrangement and temporary arrangements for COVID-19.

Mr ODENWALDER: Finally, I hope, what other sites are affected other than schools? Is it primary schools as well? What other patrol work have we handed over to AG Security Group in this process?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We did make mention of schools—primary schools are schools and secondary schools are schools—but we will provide a list to the extent that we are able to the member.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are there any imminent or immediate plans to expand this to other sites, such as Government House, Parliament House or health precincts?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not at this stage, no.

Mr PICTON: I turn to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, sub-program 1.2, page 205, emergency response, management and coordination.

Following the comments from the member for Elizabeth, before starting this line of questioning I want to pass on my thanks to all SAPOL officers—particularly the commissioner in his rather arduous job as the State Coordinator for the past eight months or however long it has been, and I know Assistant Commissioner Bamford has had a huge role as well—right down to protective security officers and all those people who have been deployed on the border, in this extraordinary role. I also want to pass on my condolences to the SAPOL family on the passing of Chief Superintendent Shanahan. I know that she was obviously involved in the COVID response as well and that it came as a huge blow to SAPOL in this difficult time.

Turning to the COVID response and SAPOL's response in terms of emergency response, I am wondering if the minister—or, through the minister, the commissioner—can outline the role of SA Police when it comes to hotel quarantine?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: SAPOL assesses the security of sites and also provides 24/7 supervision and oversight of the security provisions at medi-hotels. I have some notes that were right at the time I was given them, so I will refer to those, with the proviso that they may have been updated since then.

Currently, various medi-hotels have been established in the state, housing what were returned/repatriated persons who were required to quarantine. Obviously, those medi-hotels at the time were located in the Adelaide CBD, with one in Mount Gambier. I am advised that the facility in Mount Gambier will close as a medi-hotel on Friday 27 November. These hotels are staffed 24/7 by a contingent of SAPOL members, and for much of the time, of course, ADF members and private security staff for the purpose of supervising and also safeguarding the quarantine process.

The number of persons housed in the hotels at a certain point in time, as a proposition, obviously changes as persons commence and complete their mandatory 14 days of supervised quarantine. As at 23 November, our six medi-hotels combined to house 765 repatriated and returned travellers, and as at 23 November supervision across the six medi-hotels requires a daily commitment of 93 SAPOL members, including 73 staff deployed on roster and a further five supervisors and five command staff. Staffing medi-hotels also currently requires a daily commitment of 227 ADF members. It is anticipated that there will be a decrease in these numbers with the pending closure of the Mount Gambier medi-hotel on 27 November. I hope that is helpful.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, minister. Obviously you have outlined some specific roles that SAPOL plays in terms of the system for hotel quarantine. Who has ultimate responsibility for the program?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Ultimately SA Health and Wellbeing has that responsibility. No doubt you will be asking plenty of questions on that one, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I would not want to predict what might happen. Up until 15 November, how many SAPOL officers had been working at hotel quarantine sites on a daily basis? Obviously, 15 November was the date when that Parafield cluster was identified.

The CHAIR: The question, member for Kaurna, is: how many SAPOL officers?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Member for Kaurna, I appreciate the relevance of 15 November, but I am advised that there should not be much of a material change between the start of the 15^th and the 23^rd. That is my advice.

Mr PICTON: So how many staff?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You still want that number?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As at 23 November, supervision across the six medi-hotels requires a daily commitment of 93 SAPOL members, including 73 staff deployed on roster and a further five supervisors and five command staff. That is my advice.

Mr PICTON: When you mentioned that part of the role of SAPOL was providing supervision and oversight of the security, can you flesh out what that means? Does that mean that SAPOL is responsible for the security guards? Do they have control over that contract, or is it that they have got the day-to-day role in watching what they are doing and then they pass that on to Health?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: They are certainly not responsible for the overall contract, but it is certainly a day-to-day role in terms of supervising activities.

Mr PICTON: If there is an issue identified by a SAPOL officer, what is the action that happens then? There might be immediate action in terms of telling somebody not to do whatever they are doing, and is there a sort of follow-up action in reporting it somewhere and where does that go?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: To answer the member for Kaurna's question, if there is an issue, yes, there is activity. SA Health is notified, and SA Health would have a process, I imagine, from there.

Mr PICTON: Does SAPOL screen the individual workers who work for the private security company as guards in hotel quarantine, or is that a responsibility of SA Health?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, do you mean COVID screening?

Mr PICTON: No, I mean in terms of security screening.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is our understanding that SA Health handle the contract; it is not SAPOL's responsibility, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Does SAPOL, or the commissioner in his role as the State Coordinator, get reports on breaches in hotel quarantine and, if so, what is the format they come in?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think we have to be very careful here because of the Emergency Management Act. If there is a line of questioning concerning that act, there might be a time for it to be taken up in another place. However, in the spirit of good governance, I will attempt to answer what I can. Could I have the question again?

Mr PICTON: Does anybody in SAPOL get reports on breaches in hotel quarantine and, if so, what format do they come in?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The short answer, member for Kaurna, in the spirit of trying to answer the question is, yes, SAPOL would get reports for breaches. However, when we are talking about breaches, that word could be used quite broadly. For example, if someone touches their face when they should not, that could be reported as a breach.

Mr PICTON: Is that on a daily basis, a weekly basis or a monthly basis? How is that provided?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not have that information in front of me. Obviously, SAPOL are dealing with Health on a very regular basis, but I do not have that information. It could also be one you could pursue with Health perhaps.

Mr PICTON: How many of those SAPOL officers—and you mentioned over 90 on a daily basis have been working in hotel quarantine—have been subject to the active surveillance program of testing that was announced back on 17 August by SA Health?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will take that on notice, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Do you know how many SAPOL officers who work in hotel quarantine have been tested over the past three months?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not have that information in front of me, member for Kaurna, I am sorry.

Mr PICTON: Has there been any testing of SAPOL officers who work in hotel quarantine?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Have people requested to be tested, or is that only if somebody identifies that they have a symptom and they have gone and got tested?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not have that information. If you have a time frame in mind, or something like that, if you want that we could take it on notice; but I do not have those details.

Mr PICTON: I will ask you to take on notice how many SAPOL officers have had a proactive surveillance test between 17 August and 15 November?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What do you mean by 'proactive'?

Mr PICTON: This is not where somebody has developed a symptom—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I know you ask the questions, but I am just trying to be helpful. What do you mean by 'proactive'?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, are we talking about security or COVID?

Mr PICTON: We are talking about SAPOL officers who work in hotel quarantine.

The CHAIR: Yes, and the testing you are talking about is COVID?

Mr PICTON: A COVID test, yes. So between 17 August and 15 November, how many people have had active surveillance where they have been tested, not because of symptoms but because of a proactive attempt to check them, as is now the case in a direction that has been ordered by the State Coordinator?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will take that on notice, but obviously there may be officers outside the hotels who may have also been tested based on their duties, activities, interactions—all of that as well. We will take that on notice.

The CHAIR: We will go to the member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Do you know how many police officers and protective security officers are currently in self-quarantine as of today?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In terms of the current cluster situation, I am advised that we have 108 employees currently in quarantine. In terms of employees who have returned to duty following quarantine, it is 85, and the number of employees returning negative tests is 166.

Mr ODENWALDER: So that 108 is across the board, not just sworn officers but employees of SAPOL. Do you know about sworn police officers?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You want the breakdown by sworn officers?

Mr ODENWALDER: If you can—current quarantined police officers.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Current quarantined sworn officers, we do not have that information here, but we can take it on notice for you. Sorry, we thought we might have that answer for you, but we will have to take that one on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: Could you take on notice a month-on-month, month-ending figure of quarantine? From February, from the outbreak.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: From February to when?

Mr ODENWALDER: If it is possible to tease that out.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will take that on notice. If we can do it, we will do it.

Mr PICTON: Did anybody in SAPOL have a role in relation to the Jane Halton National Review of Hotel Quarantine? If so, what was the role of anybody in SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We will have to take this on notice. We do not have the information in front of us.

Mr PICTON: Were any recommendations provided to SAPOL that came out of the National Review of Hotel Quarantine undertaken by Jane Halton?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Nothing direct, but SAPOL have the report and are, I suppose, taking that feedback on board.

Mr PICTON: What is the role of anybody in SAPOL or the process by which international flights are approved or not approved to land in Adelaide?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We 'we' being SAPOL, are not a part of the approval process. I am advised that is a matter for SA Health.

Mr PICTON: Has SAPOL received any advice about international flights restarting as of Monday?

The CHAIR: Flights from where, member for Kaurna? I am having a little bit of trouble hearing you.

Mr PICTON: Sorry, I will speak up, Chair.

The CHAIR: Just a little bit closer to the microphone is fine. Thank you.

Mr PICTON: Has SAPOL received any advice regarding international flights restarting as of Monday?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: it seems to me that the questions have now crossed over into matters that would be dealt with under the Emergency Management Act. That act is committed to the Premier, and accordingly those questions ought to be to the Premier, not this minister.

Mr PICTON: Point of order on the point of order: specifically, the budget is in relation to SAPOL's emergency response management and coordination arm, and clearly hundreds and hundreds of officers of SAPOL were involved in the COVID-19 response. I am asking whether SAPOL has had any involvement in that. It is entirely appropriate to ask this minister—

The CHAIR: Yes, I actually agree, member for Kaurna. I do not uphold the member for Kavel's point of order. However, given the response from the minister to your question previous to this one, I think the most recent question is probably a little bit tenuous. Anyway, let's see what the minister will say.

Mr PICTON: We will see what he says. He is getting a lot of advice.

The CHAIR: We will see, yes. Given that the advice to the committee was that SAPOL had no direct involvement in the approval of international flights, I am not sure where the next question came from.

Mr PICTON: But they might have some advice, even if they do not approve. I am advised of things that I do not approve.

Mr CREGAN: All the time, I am sure. Those matters would then be operational, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Yes, they are operational. I agree with that, member for Kavel. We are delving into operational matters. The minister alluded to operational matters earlier in one of his responses, but he is entitled as the minister to respond in whichever way he likes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think the member for Kavel is on the money, like most times; however, I will try to be helpful. SA Health, the control agency, are ultimately responsible for decisions like this, but of course SAPOL, as the coordinating agency, do try to assist to achieve the outcomes, but I am advised it is probably a question for SA Health.

Mr PICTON: So there is no further information that you are aware of?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the hotel quarantine sites, you outlined them and you mentioned Mount Gambier in particular and said that it was closing. What is the reason that the Mount Gambier site is closing? Is that because it is not going to be needed because the Victorian border is expected to open?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: now we are clearly into Emergency Management Act matters.

The CHAIR: Yes, I am going to uphold the member for Kavel this time. We are really getting deep into operational matters. In relation to Sub-program 1.2: Emergency Response, Management and Coordination, I understand that the line of questioning is around that, but we are really talking about budget lines and budget allocations, so take note, member for Kaurna.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do not want to undermine the Chair but—

The CHAIR: But you are going to.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —I am happy to provide useful information.

The CHAIR: My advice to you, minister, and to all ministers, is that you are able to answer however you see fit.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The question was: why is it closing? I understand that recently there was only one person there. I think it is the Southgate. I remember visiting it on my way to Mount Gambier—it is a great part of the world—when I went there and visited the local prison. It looked like quite a suitable hotel, but unfortunately only one person was there. I understand that it was initially there for people who travelled by road. For example, if you did not fly into the city, if you preferred to travel by road, that was there, being close to the border. I think that was the original intent of that, and there was only one person there.

Mr PICTON: You mentioned earlier, minister, that one of the roles of SAPOL in relation to hotel quarantine was assessing the security of sites. I wonder if you can further outline what the process is by which hotels are determined as to their suitability, and what is the process by which the overall capacity is determined for the system?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As I said before, member for Kaurna, SA Health is ultimately responsible for the quarantine aspects of the hotels; SAPOL merely supports that. The ultimate responsibility is with SA Health.

Mr PICTON: I know the commissioner previously has made comments in relation to his concern about the number of sites and particularly SAPOL's capacity to provide staffing for each of those sites. What was the process by which additional hotels have been opened in the past few months and how were staff able to be found within SAPOL to open those additional hotels, presumably at a level of security that was sufficient for SAPOL to approve them?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, several aspects are taken into consideration, member for Kaurna: health, security, ability to police, and also the ability for a location to be effectively used as one of these hotels. It is done with feedback from SAPOL. SAPOL also has a business continuity group, and this group has been doing an amazing job. When you look at the number of heavy balls that have been in the air every day since March this year, I think that business continuity group is doing a fantastic job. It continues to balance those different levers and interests and consider those resourcing requirements as well.

Mr PICTON: Were the decisions announced yesterday in relation to hotel quarantine made on the basis of advice from SAPOL?

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chair, that is very much the Emergency Management Act.

Mr PICTON: I am not asking anything about the Emergency Management Act; I am asking about SAPOL.

The CHAIR: I know the member for Kavel keeps bringing up the Emergency Management Act but, in fact, this line of questioning relates to the emergency response of SAPOL so it is a fair and reasonable question. Member for Kaurna, I am going to ask you one more time to come in closer to your microphone. I have difficulty hearing you when you are sitting back.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Kaurna for his question. In relation to decisions about hotel quarantine that the member asked about, I am advised that SAPOL were consulted about parts of the plan that directly impacted them but, in terms of being able to provide much further detail, obviously that was only announced yesterday so the member for Kaurna will have to bear with me in terms of ferocious questioning along those lines, but hopefully that provides you with some context.

Mr PICTON: Has SAPOL made an assessment on the use of Wakefield Hospital?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised it is only an option. I am not aware of any decision that has been made about exactly which site.

Mr PICTON: So there has not yet been any assessment of the Wakefield Hospital?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not that I am aware of, no.

Mr PICTON: Has there been an assessment made of the staffing implications to SAPOL of the decision that this new site will use entirely SAPOL officers?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Those factors will be taken into consideration as part of the process, but a decision is yet to be taken.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go back to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 105, the COVID response, etc. There is mention of the new Police Operations Centre. Can you explain the purpose and the function of this new operations centre, and when is it expected to be completed?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Since 16 March, police operations have been run from the existing centre in Carrington Street, the same centre used for various other emergencies. Because of this, an alternative location is required, and that is at Thebarton. I understand that it is due to be handed over this week. Heaven forbid there is a large incident, say, with the hot weather next week and a catastrophic bushfire or something; I am advised that that would be able to be stood up this week.

Mr ODENWALDER: So it is not a specific COVID-operations centre; it is sort of an emergency centre generally, is it?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: It is an alternative POC that is able to be used for COVID as long as COVID requires it.

Mr ODENWALDER: What was the reference to bushfires, then, because I understand—

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I was just using it as an example.

Mr ODENWALDER: —there is a proper emergency centre on the way, is there not, eventually?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I might get the commissioner to clarify, member for Elizabeth.

Cmmr STEVENS: As the minister pointed out, since 16 March this year we have been running the Police Operations Centre for COVID-19 on a 16-hours a day, seven days a week basis, and in some cases 24 hours a day. We are using the very same centre that we use to manage all major policing operations, major events as well as the coordination of a bushfire response. There is no capacity for COVID-19 operations and one of those major events under another emergency to operate from the same facility, so an alternative site has been established at Thebarton Police Barracks.

Our intention this week or even today, if it was required, is to move the COVID-19 police operations to Thebarton, and they will utilise that site for as long as is required for COVID response. At the conclusion of COVID, we will have a legacy arrangement, where we would now have two police operations centres that are capable of being utilised simultaneously for dual events. A good example of that would be a major bushfire during the Tour Down Under; both events would require a police operations centre.

Mr ODENWALDER: So the intention is that this will be a permanent feature of emergency management going forward?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes, the configuration will remain in place after COVID-19.

Mr ODENWALDER: We are getting a bit technical now, but will you have the same quantum of people working on emergency management as you do now? So the number of people who are on Carrington Street now will be split? Do you understand what I am saying?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Aside from a major emergency, which requires more staffing, on an ongoing way will there be more staff allocated to emergency management on two sites, or will it be the same quantum of staff?

Cmmr STEVENS: We are talking about bricks and mortar here and IT equipment. The number of staff allocated will be contingent on the sort of emergency that we are dealing with at any given time. So, if we do have two separate incidents, we would allocate staff for each of those incidents. We now have a home for both of those incidents to be managed at the same time.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, I remind you that you need to direct questions to the minister. The minister then defers, if he wishes, to his advisers.

Membership:

Mr Szakacs substituted for Mr Picton.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will change tack away from COVID for a little while and go to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 105, which talks about the extension of the fixed-wing aviation services. What is SAPOL's current fixed-wing capability?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that South Australia Police use fixed-wing aircraft to undertake a variety of business-critical missions primarily within the state in a variety of different aspects and roles. These include things like major crime, search and rescue missions, along with the transport of prisoners and also the transport of deceased persons. Traditionally, they were conducted by SAPOL aircraft services under an Air Operator's Certificate approved by CASA, employing three full-time equivalent pilots and two fixed-wing aircraft. I am happy to elaborate more.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is unnecessary.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That is all you want to know?

Mr ODENWALDER: I just wanted to know how many planes there were and how many people it would take to fly them.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: All you want to know is two planes. If you had asked that, I would have just said it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, so this funding is merely an extension of the current arrangement then; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Sorry, say that again.

Mr ODENWALDER: This funding in the budget is just an extension of that contract going ahead to the next three years; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Essentially, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: In 2018, the police air wing was the subject of a maladministration investigation by the ICAC. Was that report ever made public?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Given the look the member for Kavel is giving me, being the good lawyer that he is, I think we have to tread very carefully when we are talking about ICAC matters.

Mr ODENWALDER: Absolutely, yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: However, I do not believe it is a public report. Obviously, it was a long period of time. I could go back and check, but I do not believe it was made public, and I think we should tread very carefully when talking about such matters.

Mr ODENWALDER: Have you seen the report?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, for rather obvious reasons, Mr Chair.

Mr ODENWALDER: This is about the contract arrangements for the fixed-wing aircraft.

The CHAIR: No.

Mr CREGAN: You asked whether the minister had seen the report.

The CHAIR: The last question was about an ICAC report.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I would want to get further advice before providing an answer. I think I will just refer to my previous comment. I am not trying to be tricky here, but we are dealing with that subject and therefore I refer to my previous answer.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did the report suggest or recommend that SAPOL retain the contract for its own fixed-wing capability or was—

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, sir: I maintain my objection.

The CHAIR: The response from the minister was that he does not believe the report was made public. I do not believe he said he had seen the report, so there is absolutely no point in asking that question. We will move on.

Mr ODENWALDER: During that ICAC investigation, two pilots, including the chief pilot, took leave. Have these two pilots now been reinstated?

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, Mr Chairman: standing order 97 as well. There are purported facts the member is trying to introduce. He knows that he requires leave, yet he is continuing to attempt to introduce those facts in addition to the matters that have been previously raised in relation to ICAC.

The CHAIR: I uphold that point of order as well, member for Kavel.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, have there been any reports prepared by SAPOL or any internal agency that have suggested or recommended the privatisation of the fixed-wing capability or a different arrangement to the current arrangements?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, SAPOL did do a review. I am advised a strategic decision remains pending on the medium and long-term direction of SAPOL aircraft service's fixed-wing aircraft, while interim arrangements have been put in place with the outsourced operation of SAPOL's state-owned Pilatus PC-12 aircraft and a second hired aircraft.

The future of SAPOL's fixed-wing aircraft services may be impacted by any consolidation or restructure of aviation services resulting from the whole-of-government review. Yes, there was a review done on whether to retain an in-house or private provider. At the moment, SAPOL is using a private provider.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you for that, minister. During the ICAC investigation, did any pilots take leave—

Mr CREGAN: Point of order, Mr Chair: I maintain my earlier objections.

Mr ODENWALDER: Hang on—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. The member for Elizabeth has put to the committee that there was an ICAC investigation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was confirmed by the minister.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, it is a matter of public record. The minister has—

The CHAIR: I take it that that is common knowledge.

Mr ODENWALDER: The minister has acknowledged it.

Mr CREGAN: No, he has not, and it is a fact—

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel, just wait, please. We do not believe the report has been made public. I understand the minister has not read the report; is that correct, minister?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not to my knowledge. I do not believe so.

The CHAIR: Then I am not sure where this line of questioning is going, if there is any possible response, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay, I will ask a different question then.

Mr CREGAN: It is not a fact and you need leave to introduce fact.

The CHAIR: The member for Kavel is called to order.

Mr ODENWALDER: At any time in the past three years, have any pilots taken extended leave and why?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: To clarify, I have been asked about leave. What sort of leave are we talking about?

The CHAIR: The question from the member for Elizabeth, from my recollection, was: has any person taken extended leave?

Mr ODENWALDER: Any leave, other than their annual leave, sick leave, compassionate leave or long service leave. Have I missed any?

The CHAIR: Any leave other than regular leave.

Mr ODENWALDER: Perhaps I could ask: was any pilot asked to take leave?

The CHAIR: So you have rephrased the question?

Mr ODENWALDER: Both questions hang in the ether.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: In the last three years?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that no-one has been asked to take leave.

Mr ODENWALDER: Then the first question still stands: has anyone taken leave, other than those types of leave that I mentioned?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am not trying to be difficult.

The CHAIR: When you are talking about anyone, you are talking about—

Mr ODENWALDER: Any pilot attached to the fixed-wing aviation capability.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I will have to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will move on.

The CHAIR: There were two planes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, we have established that there are two planes and three FTEs. I will go on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 201, key agency outputs, which identifies opportunities for legislative reform and educating the community. It is about SAPOL's role in legislative reform. The reason I raise this is that I have been asking for a briefing on it since August. Can you explain the circumstances that led to the ban on the import of gel blasters in February of this year?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The ban on the import?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, if indeed there was a ban; if not, I would like you to clarify.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that, once SAPOL had concerns, imports were suspended, especially after a ballistician report classed these items as firearms.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you clarify when the imports were suspended?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, I can.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will you?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Yes, I can. I do not have that detail right now. I will take it on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: But you are saying that it was following the ballistics report; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As this was an operational decision, I might pass over to the commissioner.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister. The officer in charge of the Firearms Branch had concerns about the nature of gel blasters in terms of how they relate to the Firearms Act, and whilst that was being clarified orders for gel blasters being imported were suspended. There was subsequently a ballistician’s review, which was also peer reviewed, which ultimately determined that gel blasters were classified as firearms under the act.

Mr ODENWALDER: But imports were suspended by SAPOL before the ballistics report. Can you give us an idea of when?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: We do not have that detail right here.

Mr ODENWALDER: Was it before June?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I believe so, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Was the ban on imports a decision of SAPOL, and under what authority does SAPOL have the power to do that?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, are we talking about imports into South Australia specifically?

Mr ODENWALDER: Indeed, imports into South Australia. Yes, each state has its own regulation.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The commissioner is obviously the registrar. His delegate made the decision in his capacity as the officer in charge of the Firearms Branch.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Registrar of Firearms has the authority to ban the import of any item? Well, it was not a firearm before June.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Imports were suspended, not banned.

Mr ODENWALDER: Suspended. So does SAPOL then have the power to suspend the import of any item—sorry, the Registrar of Firearms, I should say?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: As it relates to the Firearms Act, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: But up until some point—up until October, in fact—it was not a firearm.

Mr CREGAN: Mr Chair, I am just not sure whether we are examining the budget or the member is seeking legal advice in relation to matters he could separately be advised on.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order on that: I am examining SAPOL's role in legislative reform. This is legislative reform. They have brought a regulation to the minister, and I am asking how that regulation was arrived at.

Mr CREGAN: That had been made under existing legislation, and you are not asking about a budget line, either.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, regulations are legislative reform.

Mr CREGAN: That may be, but that is a matter for question time, in my view. I maintain my objection, Mr Chair.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, you are not the Chair. You should try to be the Chair of the Economic and Finance Committee—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr CREGAN: The objection is put to the Chair, as you well know.

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Kavel is called to order. I am going to refer the committee to the little known and not often used standing order 141: the house does not permit quarrels. In fact, I had to use it yesterday. Standing order 141 states that the house interferes to prevent quarrels between members that arises out of proceedings. The easiest way to avoid quarrels and having me call for order in the house is to direct questions and points of order through the Chair. Everybody knows that.

The member for Elizabeth, at the outset of this line of questioning, referred to a budget line. It was about legislative reform. Given the topical nature of gel blasters in the past few months and the minister's willingness to answer, I am happy for the member for Elizabeth to continue at this stage. Where were we up to?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think I will just refer to my previous answers.

The CHAIR: Which may mean, member for Elizabeth, that that line of questioning is coming and end; I do not know.

Mr ODENWALDER: I hope not.

The CHAIR: Well, let's see.

Mr ODENWALDER: The suspension of the processing of B709A forms, which allowed the import of gel blasters before this date, was a decision of the Registrar of Firearms as delegate; is that right? Where is that legislated? Where does that authority come from?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: If we are going to start getting into legislation lines, I will take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: But the suspension itself was made on the basis that it may or may not be a firearm; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to my previous answer.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are you going to do this all day?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You can if you want. There is also a standing order on repetition, sir.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would ask the Chair to direct the minister to answer question or at least try.

The CHAIR: No. You can ask me, but we determined earlier that, as is always the case, the minister can answer the question in whatever way they see fit. It is not uncommon for ministers to refer the question to his or her previous answer. That is not uncommon.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay.

The CHAIR: If I can just go back a little bit, my recollection of advice the minister received just a few minutes ago is that a gel blaster was determined to be a firearm; am I correct in that?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, not at this point.

The CHAIR: Well, I stand to be corrected, but perhaps we could clarify that right now.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Importation was suspended pending determination about how a gel blaster would fit in with the Firearms Act. They were then classified as a firearm. I might take this opportunity to talk a little about gel blasters and perhaps provide a useful update because, obviously, I can see where the member for Elizabeth is going on this.

I can advise that a number of permits to acquire gel blaster firearms have been received and a number have been granted. A number of businesses have also since submitted applications to establish gel blaster businesses where gel blasters can be used, and I think this is a positive thing. I am advised that one venue at Windsor Gardens has been approved and others are pending, so that is a good thing.

There has been movement here, and these businesses are getting on with the job of doing what they need to do to conduct their business, and I think that is a good thing. I appreciate the concern; the member is quite right to raise the matter, and I am trying to be as thorough and respectful as I can in my answers.

Mr ODENWALDER: As a supplementary to that, how many firearms licences have been applied for, how many have been granted and how many gel blasters have been registered since the regulation was made?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that, as at 28 October, 181 people have applied for a firearms licence in order to possess gel blasters. Of those, two have been approved to progress to undertake their firearm safety training, with remaining applications currently pending. A further 28 applications to vary existing firearms licences have been received, 25 permits to acquire gel blaster firearms have been received, seven have been granted and three have been refused. Three businesses—which is great—have submitted applications to establish gel blaster businesses where gel blasters can be used, and one in the north-east has been approved. Two are pending.

Before commencing operation, I understand that the nominees are also required by the Firearms Act to hold a firearms licence. Once those nominees are licensed, then the venue will be able to operate. It is a positive move, I think. I hope that helps the member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: It does. The advice that B709A permits were suspended pending assessment of whether they were firearms, was that information relayed to the Firearms Branch generally, who presumably give advice to the business sector or anyone else who is applying for a firearms licence?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised this was managed by the Firearms Branch.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have received information that business owners, or at least one business owner, was advised in June by the Firearms Branch (and I will not name the person) that B709A forms are not being processed at the moment due to the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Which is it: did SAPOL discontinue the processing of B709As because of safety concerns because it may be a firearm or because of COVID? This is in June.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Although I believe you are introducing fact into your question, in the interests of being productive here, if you want to furnish any letter or complaint or correspondence I am more than happy to have it looked at for you. However, I have to take that on notice. I just do not have the details of what you are looking at.

Mr ODENWALDER: As a supplementary to that, can you tell me whether the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrably affected the processing of B709A forms?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I believe SA Police are doing an exceptional job, sir.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do too.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You would not want to be in any other part of the world than South Australia at the moment. I am not saying that the member for Elizabeth is trying to do this, but there are some out there who sometimes seek to use and cherrypick examples of facts and figures to try to undermine policing in this state. I do not appreciate it and I will not have it. I am not imputing that to the member for Elizabeth—

Mr ODENWALDER: I hope note.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: —but obviously you have been provided with information about someone who is unhappy. If you want to provide that to me, I am more than happy to have it looked at for you.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will forward it to you, sir. Chair, the reason I am asking these questions is that there are significant portions of the community who do not feel they were adequately consulted by the government before this regulation was made. It remains to be seen whether this is an example of some misinformation, whether intentional or not—

Mr CREGAN: Point of order: this is opinion and argument, contrary to the standing order. What is the question?

The CHAIR: I uphold the point of order. Member for Elizabeth, the minister has invited you to forward the information you have to him for a response, as many members in this place would have done in relation to this issue, I am sure. I have had discussions and correspondence myself with the minister in relation to gel blasters.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I will say to the member for Elizabeth is that a number of businesses have submitted applications to establish gel blaster businesses. One venue has been approved and two are pending. People are getting on with the job. They are getting these things registered.

Obviously there is a business there, and good luck to them is what I say. If the checks and balances are there and they abide by the law, then good luck to them. I hope they prosper. Obviously some are still complaining, and I am more than happy to look at those complaints, feed them through and provide a response at the appropriate time.

Mr ODENWALDER: Whose decision was it to introduce the regulation in its current form?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: That process was managed by the SAPOL Firearms Branch.

Mr ODENWALDER: So the Firearms Branch declare an article a firearm and they suggest a regulation to the government. Is it not then at the minister's discretion whether to accept that or whether to seek other solutions? Does the minister have to accept the advice of SAPOL or the Registrar of Firearms in making the regulations?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I will do, to be comprehensive, is provide a comprehensive summary of this item. I will take that on notice and provide a comprehensive summary to the member.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would like a specific answer to whose decision it was to regulate. The minister has publicly said this is an operational matter of SAPOL; that is on the record. He said this is an operational matter of SAPOL.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Which it is.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, it is an operational matter, as we discussed, of the Firearms Branch to declare an article a firearm. It is a matter for their agency to provide you with advice. What you do with that advice is up to you. Did you seek any other solutions?

Mr CREGAN: He has taken it on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to make sure I get an answer to the right question.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I refer to my previous statement.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did you consider any of the solutions found interstate?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The comment has been made about what is available interstate, so it might allow me the opportunity to talk about those various—

Mr ODENWALDER: I am asking if you considered any.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You are asking about interstate, so let's have a look at what they do interstate, the regulatory status in each jurisdiction. I thank the member for Elizabeth for the question. In New South Wales, gel blasters have been determined to be an air gun and therefore a category A firearm. In addition, gel blasters that substantially duplicate in appearance a military-style firearm are classified as a prohibited firearm. In the Australian Capital Territory, gel blasters do not need to be registered, as they are considered either a prohibited firearm under the act by way of mechanism or appearance based or they are deemed a toy. Gel blasters are not permitted in the ACT.

In Tasmania, gel blasters have been classified as an imitation firearm pursuant to the Firearms Act and are also a prohibited firearm. In Western Australia, gel blasters are prohibited, pursuant to section 4 of the Firearms Act. In Victoria, gel blasters are classified as firearms for the purpose of the Firearms Act. In the Northern Territory, they are prohibited pursuant to the Weapons Act—in the Northern Territory, sir. In Queensland, there are no restrictions and, from a commonwealth point of view, gel blasters are currently controlled on importation as imitation firearms. So was thought or regard given to other jurisdictions? Yes.

Mr MURRAY: My question to the minister is in regard to the Mobile Workforce Transformation Program. I am very interested in the benefits that will accrue to the force. Without being too specific, I am intrigued as to the vendors and developers that will (a) provide those facilities and (b) enhance them. For conformity with the way in which these questions need to be asked, I am referring to Budget Paper 5, page 106, a total of $34.9 million.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. We are talking about the Mobile Workforce Transformation Program. I will make some introductory comments and then I might also seek some advice. At the outset, I think it is important that we can utilise technology to the best of our ability, to make sure that we can protect both the South Australian public and of course those who protect us, and use technology to their advantage to make sure that they can be as productive and also as efficient as possible.

Once upon a time, if you had an expiation notice you would have to write it up with a pen and pad. The member for Elizabeth will remember those days. These days, we have moved to smarter, more efficient methods, and I think that is certainly a good thing. SAPOL's vision is to provide a visible, responsive police service for all South Australians. That is underpinned by a key strategy to be accessible, innovative and efficient in the use of resources, and also responsive in the delivery of frontline services regardless of circumstances.

Utilising technology is something we should do across all portfolio areas. If we can use more modern tools, why would we not do it to fight crime and also to be more efficient and productive? Contemporary technologies enable SAPOL to utilise innovative approaches to how, when and where work is performed. The key goal of the Mobile Workforce Transformation Program is to streamline operations to maximise time available for frontline policing services to the South Australian community. This program will leverage mobile technologies and applications to communicate and access computer systems any time, anywhere, whether in the field, in vehicle or in the office.

South Australia is a big state and it is important that officers are able to work anywhere. To achieve this, the $34.9 million program will provide personal issue mobile phones to all SAPOL personnel, sworn and unsworn, enabling them to wirelessly connect with a mobile network hub or utilise a 4G or 5G connection to access SAPOL applications and computer systems.

In addition, the program will install portable network hubs in all workstations—which is fantastic—meeting rooms, service facilities and in operational vehicles. Using a mobile phone through the network hubs will enable desktop and laptop PCs to be retired. The program will also upgrade the standard platform for end-user computing to provide staff with up-to-date productivity and collaboration tools, including videoconferencing, and redevelop SAPOL's existing policing applications to further deliver operational efficiencies using a mobile-by-design approach.

This will enable all applications to be used on any contemporary computing device regardless of operating system and screen size. The Mobile Workforce Transformation Program will provide a wide range of direct and indirect benefits to SAPOL and the justice system. In this day and age of COVID, we have had to utilise things like AVL in the police and corrections space when appropriate to do so, when visits were not able to occur. It is helping in the justice system, South Australian agencies and also the community.

Based on the experience of other jurisdictions and work undertaken as part of the business case development, a number of benefits have been identified, including time savings of 30 minutes per officer per shift, which is a massive efficiency dividend. These time savings correspond to the equivalent of deploying an additional 30 operational police officers per shift, I am told.

There will also be benefits relating to the safety, health and wellbeing of SAPOL staff as well as an expected uplift in the levels of staff engagement. The new technology will also improve SAPOL's emergency and business continuity response. Staff will have full access to systems wherever they are located and will be able to be mobilised quickly to undertaken different high-priority tasks as well.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister—a very fulsome answer.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I have something to add relating to PSOs and school patrols. I am advised that all AG security working under the arrangements have been probity checked at the level required of a SAPOL cadet, and this is above normal contractor probity check requirements.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 207, crime and illegal drugs, sub-program 2.1. On how many occasions since January 2019 have SAPOL sniffer dogs been invited onto school grounds by school principals to look for drugs under the new protocols?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The answer is once. By way of background, in 2018, with a focus, I suppose, on education and harm minimisation, the government's policy platform addressing substance abuse in schools committed the Department for Education and also SAPOL to develop agreed protocols to enable schools to more easily access the use of what is known as passive alert drug detection dogs or PADD dogs. A protocol was developed between the Department for Education and SAPOL. It outlines the process for managing drug detection operations in the Department for Education, Catholic Education South Australia and also the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia.

Proactive PADD dog operations can now be undertaken in senior schools with the approval of a delegate from each agency. I am advised that, in the event of a drug detection operation in a school, it is a prearranged activity between the principal of the school, the Department for Education and SAPOL. Its purpose is to prevent drug use and provide education to students about the associated harms and consequences of drug use.

The PADD operations to search a defined area are arranged when there is no specific suspicion that a controlled drug, controlled precursor or controlled plant is currently present. Obviously, the search involves the deliberate movement of all students away from the search area to an essential point, where education material is provided. While it is occurring, SAPOL PADD dog handlers attending conduct a search of classrooms, bags, lockers, staffrooms and open areas of the school grounds, and interaction between students and the dog team is avoided.

To date, SAPOL has received only one request from the Department for Education for a proactive search of a school. The first and only operation was undertaken at a school on 19 November. Whilst indications of the presence of drug odour were provided, there were no detections of any illicit substances on that occasion. I believe SAPOL and the Department for Education are currently in the process of looking at another operation later this year.

Mr ODENWALDER: To clarify, there was one invitation from the Department for Education. There were no further invitations that were rejected for some reason? There was one invitation sought and one invitation met?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: What I will do is clarify, member for Elizabeth: there were two requests and one operation was conducted. A second potential one was cancelled by the Department for Education. So one was carried out and one was cancelled.

Mr ODENWALDER: So none have been cancelled by SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will you concede, then, that the sniffer dog policy is a failure if there has been one search yielding no results? It allows for random searches—

The CHAIR: The member for Elizabeth is asking the minister for an opinion.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes. He is the minister; if he wants to give me his opinion, he can.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I would reject that vehemently, that it was a failure.

Mr ODENWALDER: Supplementary: in what sense is it a success?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: This is a rhetorical question. This is calling for an opinion.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, no, it is not. You said it is not a failure, so in what sense is it not a failure?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, there was certainly a focus on education and harm minimisation and it is certainly a deterrent. Who knows? If there are drugs in schools, we may see this rolled out. I think it is important to have that capability. I think it is a deterrent. It is important to focus on education and harm minimisation. This is a policy that has been enacted and it is there. It is able to be used. Just because it has not been used all that often does not necessarily mean that it was not a good policy.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it a deterrent in the sense that school students are regularly reminded that this is the case, that SAPOL and education now have this protocol in place? Is that how it acts as a deterrent?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I think what the member is trying to do now is talk about the merits of the policy.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just asking a question. You said it was a deterrent.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth!

Mr ODENWALDER: You said it was a deterrent.

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Elizabeth has asked his question. The minister is answering.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: He has made it clear that he does not like this policy as much as the government does.

Mr ODENWALDER: I just want to know if it is working or not, and it is clearly not.

The CHAIR: You have asked that question, member for Elizabeth.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: You are entitled to ask your question, but I cannot add any more.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Mr MURRAY: Well, it is a point of order and it is a practical issue as well. As you are doubtless aware, this matter was extensively canvassed in the education estimate hearing, so if you have any specific questions regarding the operation of the policy, which is why we are here, I suggest you refer to those.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thanks for your advice.

Mr MURRAY: Happy to provide it.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Davenport. There are two things I will say about that: although I did not let the member for Davenport finish, he is called to order for a bogus point of order. Also, member for Elizabeth, I remind you—and you have been very good today—it is disorderly to interject while the minister is answering. Minister, with five or six minutes to go.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that the Department for Education and SAPOL are currently in the process of looking at a second operation for later this year, so I would not say it is a failure at all.

Mr ODENWALDER: I read the following omnibus questions into Hansard:

1. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What is the actual FTE count at 30 June 2020 and the projected actual FTE count for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the total employment cost for each year of the forward estimates?

What is the notional FTE job reduction target that has been agreed with Treasury for each year of the forward estimates?

Does the agency or department expect to meet the target in each year of the forward estimates?

How many TVSPs are estimated to be required to meet FTE reductions over the forward estimates?

2. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

How much is budgeted to be spent on goods and services for 2020-21, and for each of the years of the forward estimates period?

The top ten providers of goods and services by value to each agency reporting to the minister for 2019-20; and

A description of the goods and/or services provided by each of these top ten providers, and the cost to the agency for these goods and/or services.

The value of the goods and services that was supplied to the agency by South Australian suppliers.

3. Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which has either (1) been abolished and (2) has been created?

4. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing:

the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier;

cost;

work undertaken;

reason for engaging the contractor; and

method of appointment.

5. For each department and agency for which the minister has responsibility:

How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2019-20 and what was their employment expense?

How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and what is their estimated employment expense?

The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums in 2019-20 and budgeted cost for 2020-21.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a full itemised breakdown of attraction and retention allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contracts between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2020, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices?

8. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2019-20?

(b) What department funded these TVSPs? (except for DTF estimates)

(c) What number of TVSPs were funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how are these packages funded?

(e) What is the breakdown per agency/branch of targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year) by FTEs?

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many executive terminations have occurred since 1 July 2019 and what is the value of executive termination payments made?

10. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new executive appointments have been made since 1 July 2019, and what is the annual salary, and total employment cost for each position?

11. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, how many employees have been declared excess, how long has each employee been declared excess, and what is the salary of each excess employee?

12. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on operating programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21?

13. In the 2019-20 financial year, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on investing or capital projects or programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2020-21? How much was sought and how much was approved?

14. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years:

(a) Name of the program or fund;

(b) The purpose of the program or fund;

(c) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(d) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(e) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(f) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(g) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

15. For the period of 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, provide a breakdown of all grants paid by the department/agency that report to the minister, including when the payment was made to the recipient, and when the grant agreement was signed by both parties.

16. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budgeted expenditure across the 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

17. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

18. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total cost of machinery of government changes since 1 July 2019 and please provide a breakdown of those costs?

19. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what new sections of your department or agency have been established since 1 July 2019 and what is their purpose?

20. For each department and agency reporting to the minister:

What savings targets have been set for each year of the forward estimates?

What measures are you implementing to meet your savings target?

What is the estimated FTE impact of these measures?

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio of South Australia Police and the Administered Items for South Australia Police complete. Thank you, minister, member for Elizabeth, advisers and commissioner.

Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 13:45.