Estimates Vote

South Australia Police, $821,399,000

Administered Items for South Australia Police, $59,000

Minister:

Hon. P Malinauskas, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety.

Departmental Advisers:

Cmmr G. Stevens, Commissioner of Police, South Australia Police.

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

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

Mr S. Howard, Superintendent, Officer in Charge, Executive Support Section, South Australia Police.

Mr C. Andrews, Manager, Business Service Support, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: Good morning, minister, commissioner and ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Estimates Committee B. Estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure. As such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker have agreed on an approximate time for the consideration of payments. At the moment, I have from 9 till 11 with SAPOL. Is that what we understand about this morning?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Excellent. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 27 October. Committee responses will be published during the 14 November sitting week in the Hansard. I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition an opening statement of about 10 minutes each, should they wish.

There will be a flexible approach to questions. It is all very informal and flexible, but questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents. However, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material into Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister. The minister may then refer questions to advisers for a response.

During the committee examinations, the media can be present and television cameras will be permitted to film from both the northern and southern galleries. Minister, you are appearing first of all as the Minister for Police. I declare the proposed payments open. I refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 3, and I now call on the minister to introduce his advisers and make a statement, if he wishes.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Good morning and thank you very much, Mr Chair. Allow me to introduce the gentlemen sitting with me at the main table. On my right, I have the Commissioner of Police in South Australia, Mr Grant Stevens. On my left is Mr Denis Patriarca and on his left is Mr Ian Hartmann. Today marks my second appearance at this committee, and a substantial amount of work has been undertaken in the preceding 12 months.

At the fore of all that work have been, of course, the men and women within SAPOL who each day serve our state tirelessly as they endeavour to keep our state and South Australians safe. I have been fortunate enough to have witnessed those officers conduct their duties in some of the most challenging environments and across all corners of South Australia, from the front line in Hindley Street in the early hours of one particular Sunday morning to our remote Aboriginal communities on the APY lands and the expanses of the West Coast region. Each of these experiences expands my knowledge of policing and provides the opportunity to speak to officers about their experiences and challenges on the front line.

With every interaction, and at every turn, I continue to be impressed by the passion and the calibre of our officers, and by not only their commitment to the safety of the state but also the manner in which they engage with communities in the delivery of positive outcomes to the daily lives of South Australians. That impact was recognised in the Report on Government Services published in January by the Productivity Commission, with South Australia Police receiving the distinction of being regarded as the most professional police force in the nation. They were some three percentage points higher than the national average on that score.

As I mentioned earlier, the previous year has been exceptionally busy. The state government continues its commitment to building the largest and also one of the most technologically advanced police forces not only in our state's history but also in the nation. This commitment has seen historic levels of growth in recruitment, with the Police Academy a current hive of activity, housing in excess of 360 cadets as we speak—the most since 1977—each on the first steps of their journey to becoming a front-line operational SAPOL officer. These recruits will see the state government honour its commitment to recruit an additional 313 officers and, in turn, support our proud legacy of having the most police per capita of any Australian state.

Coupled with the continued growth of the police budget to its highest level in recorded history, this affords the police commissioner the opportunity to have a visible police presence to ensure that South Australians not only are safe but also that they feel safe. South Australians do not just feel safer as result of the work conducted by SAPOL, though: they are actually safer. Over the last 10-year period between 2006-07 and 2015-16, South Australia has witnessed a steady reduction in recorded crime, resulting in a decrease of 30.5 per cent, or 47,075 offences, of total offences against persons and property. It is important to remember that these figures represent real people, our friends, family and neighbours, who, had it not been for the work of our police, would have otherwise suffered the trauma of being a victim of crime.

However, the work is not done and the challenges posed to our community continue to evolve, whether that be through the threats of crimes in the 21^st century or the risks posed by terrorism, and we must ensure our police are provided with all the resources necessary to combat crime. That is why over the last 12 months I have been proud to be able to stand with the police commissioner as SAPOL has delivered facial recognition technology, ruggedised tablet technology, body-worn cameras for front-line officers, and enhanced firearms training simulation. Technologies such as these ensure that our officers have the tools of the 21^st century at their disposal, and in turn guarantees the continued enhancement of the manner in which police services are delivered.

Nowhere has the desire for continuous improvement been more evident than with SAPOL's 2020 reform agenda, led by the commissioner. Again, I want to put on the record my support for the police commissioner in his decision to make all the necessary reforms to ensure that we have police on the beat providing a visible presence in the community, providing a real deterrent to the commission of criminal activity. We hope that those opposite would also support initiatives that make our community safer. The government will continue to stand with our police force to ensure they have the capacity to continue to provide the exemplary level of service to the South Australian community that the community reasonably expects.

In closing, I want to place on the record my thanks and appreciation to all of SAPOL's officers, who are the first responders in South Australia, who run towards danger when everyone else is running from it, for their commitment, passion and professionalism as they work tirelessly in making our state a safer place. To the police commissioner and his executive, for their leadership, which enables our community to take confidence in the direction of the South Australian police force, I also say thank you. Finally, I thank the Police Association for their continued advocacy of the interests of their members. They are an important component of our policing system in South Australia.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Member for Schubert, do you have an opening statement?

Mr KNOLL: Only to echo the sentiments in relation to the opposition's thanks for the work SAPOL does. It is a difficult gig but one I think that is done, by and large, very well; certainly, I think the respect the community has for SAPOL is pretty good—unless, of course, we are talking about the people who fall foul of SAPOL's work, whose opinions are, perhaps, slightly different.

I would like to start off on Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 119, Workforce summary, and some questions that I think we ask on a regular basis. How many active sworn police officers—FTEs—were there as at 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you for the question. I am able to provide the following information: as at 30 June 2017 there were 4,477 0.4 police or community constables and 339 cadets. On top of that, there were 1,069 unsworn members, which brings it to a total of 5,885.

Mr KNOLL: Was that 30 June 2016 or 30 June 2017?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: 30 June 2017.

Mr KNOLL: Do you also have the 30 June 2016 figures there?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: In respect of the 30 June 2016 figures, we will take that on notice to get you the actual numbers. We have the workforce cap numbers, but to get you the actual numbers as at that particular date I will take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: That is fine. Also, in light of 313, is it possible to get that over the forward estimates as at the end of financial year date for 2018-19? Essentially, what I am trying to get at is whether total police numbers will plateau.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I can answer that for you. In terms of the four-year workforce cap profile, the following is currently forecasted: as at 30 June 2018, our expectation is that there will be 4,713.2 sworn officers—that is both police and community constables. That number will continue over the forward estimates.

Mr KNOLL: So, 4,713 will be the number that will stay consistent.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, that is correct; that is what is provided for in the budget. On top of that, for the sake of clarity, also within the workforce cap are numbers of unsworn members and cadets. We also offer a course for a continuous number of cadets in the system each and every year in order to maintain that record level of 4,713 police.

Mr KNOLL: That is obviously an FTE cap.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

Mr KNOLL: You have talked about active police cadets. How many non-active sworn officers were there at 30 June 2017?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: As at 30 June—is the number you are seeking for sworn officers, the active—

Mr KNOLL: Yes, non-active sworn.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Non-active sworn is 90.9: 39 male and 51 female.

Mr KNOLL: This is my first time to the dance so can you just explain what a non-active, sworn police officer is and the main reasons for them being—

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I am happy to. It shows the number of employees in each of the categories and includes those people who are on leave without pay. For instance, this would include someone on maternity or paternity leave or any other reason why they would need to take an extended period of time of leave without pay. I am sure the commissioner will correct me if I am wrong here but another instance would be if someone was on a long-term period of sick leave where paid sick leave was not available to them—something to that effect.

Mr KNOLL: How many transit police FTEs are there, as at 30 June 2017?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there are 96 plus one ASO.

Mr KNOLL: Just going back to non-active sworn: are any of those people suspended police officers—perhaps a situation where it is not sick leave, not paternity leave—are any of those 90.9 people who have been suspended without pay for disciplinary reasons?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That category of inactive sworn officers would include those members who are on leave without pay or who have been suspended from duty without pay, yes.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have a breakdown of how many officers would fit that category?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No, but I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: I will switch our attention now to the same budget paper, page 119, on the net cost of services. Minister, I am sure you will be well aware and so will the commissioner about a Coroner's report that was handed down in the last weeks in relation to the conduct of Firearms Branch, especially in relation to the Marksman firearms range. It is quite a long and, one would have to say, scathing report. It also details the tragic suicide of a person late last year when tethering devices were not put in place. It details in there the fact that there was a letter sent to your office that incorrectly stated the status of the tethering system that was designed to be put in place at Marksman. I wonder if you could comment on that but also what action has been taken subsequently.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am struggling to understand the relationship between your inquiry and the budget papers but, nevertheless, I am happy to—

Mr KNOLL: No, I agree with you, minister. You can choose not to answer this, if you like.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to just quickly reflect upon the fact that, clearly, the case of Mr McConnal is tragic, as is any suicide. I think the key measure that the community should be conscious of is that there is now legislative change that has been passed through parliament, as you would be aware, that now requires firearms ranges of the likes of Marksman to have tethering installed.

We think that is a positive step forward and, now that it is in place, represents an improvement when it comes to safety in and around firearms ranges of the likes of Marksman. That said, I am happy to indulge and provide that detail, but I reiterate that I do not think there is any budgetary implication as a consequence of those changes.

Mr KNOLL: If I can turn to something that potentially could be a budgetary implication, especially in relation to the workforce summary, the commissioner has made comments on radio about the fact that he has undertaken to look through the report, and there is obviously questions that have been asked—well, not questions that have been asked but statements made by the Coroner in relation to the conduct of certain officers. I am just asking what time line there is in relation to dealing with this matter and whether any decisions have been made in relation to either investigating further, or what are the next steps post the—

The CHAIR: Again, I do not mean to—

Mr KNOLL: This directly relates to—

The CHAIR: Hang on, hang on.

Mr KNOLL: —whether or not employees are going to be suspended, which very much has budgetary implications.

The CHAIR: You have not heard what I was going to say. I could have been congratulating you on your excellent question, but I am not. I am saying you are skating very close to the edge of what is allowed during budget estimates. The minister, again, can choose to answer if he wishes and in any way he wishes, and then we will move on to a budget line.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: If it is okay, Chair, this will be the last time. I am happy to accommodate the question, but I am not inclined to see an important process of the parliament be put down a path that is not consistent with what the intent of estimates is. But for the sake of the member for Schubert, I am happy to accommodate him this one last time.

It is important to note from the coronial inquiry that there are no specific recommendations for SAPOL that come out of it. There are things within it that are naturally of concern that I have no doubt the commissioner has contemplated in the way that is appropriate, but there are no specific recommendations that have come out of that coronial inquiry for SAPOL—more lessons to learn. The most important thing—and again I reiterate—is that we have now put in place a legislative regime that requires tethering at firearms ranges of the likes of Marksman, which will go a long way to having an additional level of protection for people who would otherwise seek to use a firearms range like Marksman as a place where they could commit suicide.

Mr KNOLL: There is going to be no follow-up action is essentially what your answer is.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Not at all. There have been substantial follow-up actions, not least of which is a change of law of the state, which now requires firearms ranges like Marksman to have tethering systems in place. That is a substantial step forward, which we think is positive. I want to put on record my thanks to all sides of politics that worked hard to see that legislative change take place.

Mr KNOLL: Okay. It did not need a legislative change to introduce the tethering system.

The CHAIR: Hang on. You do not need to comment on the minister's answers. You can ask a question if you like.

Mr KNOLL: Okay. We will leave that with some very little clarity. Can we move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 121 in relation to the Public Safety program summary. Minister, can I ask how many community constables there are at the moment? I note that there were 25 and a bit FTEs as per the last annual report. I am just seeking something from 30 June 2017.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: As at 30 June this year there were 22.4 community constables.

Mr KNOLL: How many are stationed on the APY lands?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: There are currently three, but I am also advised that seven vacancies are available positions ready to go; it is just a matter of dealing with the substantial challenge of recruiting people into those roles. In terms of remote communities and community constables, because this is an important part of policing on the lands, there is also one at Yalata.

Mr KNOLL: That is in addition to the other three?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

Mr KNOLL: We say there are three on the APY lands, so that means there are about another 19 somewhere else?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

Mr KNOLL: Can you detail where those 19 are?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I do not have a breakdown of each and every one of the 19, but it is fair to say that there are a number in regional South Australian LSAs, places like the Far West, for instance, and some are stationed at Port Lincoln, I am advised, but also are scattered around other LSAs around the state, including a few in metropolitan Adelaide as well. If you like, I am happy to take on notice where the other 19 are in terms of how many are at which LSAs.

Mr KNOLL: Sure. In the community, a community constable has a specific jurisdiction, as defined by the agreement the commissioner sets. Are those jurisdictions only defined by geography, or are there situations where there is a gradation to the level of power and responsibility that a community constable can undertake?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That being a question of an operational nature, I might invite the police commissioner to respond.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thanks, minister. Yes, there are differences in the level of authorities some community constables have. Traditional community constables working on the lands have some restrictions in relation to the duties they undertake and the operational safety equipment they are able to carry. Metropolitan community constables are far more closely aligned to the authorities of a generally sworn police officer.

It is also important to point out that we are expanding the concept of community constable to extend beyond Indigenous Australians being employed in that capacity, and we are looking at other culturally and linguistically-diverse communities, where we can leverage the same sort of engagement with a community by having somebody from that community working as a community constable.

Mr KNOLL: For those who are outside of people with Aboriginal heritage, what sort of FTE count, how many are you looking at to work in those culturally and linguistically-diverse communities?

Cmmr STEVENS: My understanding is that at this point I think we have about four people who would fit under the heading of community constable who do not come from an Australian Indigenous community background.

Mr KNOLL: And they are likely to be within metropolitan LSAs?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: When you provide the breakdown, can you provide a breakdown of that?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Happy to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: I move on to the provision of psychological assessments. As I understand it, currently there are a number of branches that need—

The CHAIR: Sorry, which budget line—you have lost me.

Mr KNOLL: Page 119, net cost of services, but the workforce summary is probably more appropriate. Minister, can you outline which branches are required to undertake annual psychological assessments?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there are a number of branches that undertake psychological assessments and training on a more systematic basis. I will have to take on notice which sections they are. Just to provide an example, for those officers working in the sex crimes section, they would be an obvious category, having to deal with traumatic circumstances on a regular basis. I am happy to take your question on notice and get a list of exactly which branches do assessments.

Mr KNOLL: I suppose what I am asking is: does SAPOL track adherence to that requirement? I assume it comes under some sort of general order which would be the requirement to undertake that.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that, yes, there is a monitoring arrangement in place around who undertakes the training and assessment and so forth and who does not. That is the responsibility of the relevant branch manager.

Mr KNOLL: Is there a reporting mechanism that comes as part of that? You say it is undertaken by the relevant branch manager, but is that reported up through the chain? Is there a report that you can undertake to provide the details as to whether or not compliance with that has been fulfilled?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take that on notice to get the accurate details around how that takes place.

Mr KNOLL: If I can move on regarding the same budget line and the net cost of services. I received the first copy of the Blueprint magazine in my in-tray a couple of months ago. I am keen to understand, first off, the rationale behind it and also how often that magazine is likely to be published and the costs that are associated with it.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Again, relating to something that is operational with SAPOL, I will invite the commissioner to answer that.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister, and thank you for the question. We have traditionally produced the Blueprint magazine for as long as I can remember, and it has had different iterations and different names over its history. It is currently called Blueprint. There was a hiatus in its production of almost two years, I think, between publications.

The purpose of the magazine is to inform our workforce of changes and innovation which are occurring within SAPOL, as well as highlighting significant achievements, investigations and major incidents which we manage and to provide some perspective on people within the organisation to shine a spotlight on those people who have done well or warrant that sort of exposure. The exact cost, we will have to take on notice, but it is in the order of $20,000. I think the intention at this point in time is to produce that magazine on a quarterly basis.

Mr KNOLL: Is there an FTE allocation to that program?

Cmmr STEVENS: It falls within the duties of our new governance and capability service and is produced by our media and public engagement and our communications and marketing areas.

Mr KNOLL: I assume the $20,000 relates to publication as opposed to any sort of staffing resource.

Cmmr STEVENS: They are the publication costs. It is an annual cost, not a per edition cost.

Mr KNOLL: Still on this budget line, a comment I get quite often from talking to front-line police officers that I meet around the place is the difficulty they have when they apprehend criminals. Depending on the nature of what they are doing, it can mean a lot of time back at the office or the station processing somebody through the system. Can you outline what work is being undertaken currently to try to manage that process and improve it?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you for your question. It is an important one. As you are well aware, the government is committed to making sure that we have a large police force, but I do not think that can be used as a means for a lack of innovation. We are making sure that we are looking at inefficiencies as well. We do not just want a large police force, we also want an increasingly efficient and productive one. Technology is part of making sure that we can deliver that. There are a number of technologies that we have rolled out in order not just to be able to achieve more activity on the front line and an enhanced ability to catch criminals, but also to make sure that SAPOL can be as productive and efficient as it reasonably can.

A big part of that was the introduction of mobile ruggedised tablets into the police force. It has been a very substantial procurement exercise and it certainly does not represent what at first appears as a key front-line resource when it comes to catching criminals, but it does dramatically increase the time available to police officers. The ruggedised mobile tablet technology means less time in the station doing basic reporting mechanisms, now that they can be done out in the field without the officer having to go back to a station to complete a report. They can take witness statements right there on site.

That is a substantial leap forward, and that technology is being rolled out. A substantial trial took place before that occurred. I do have some statistics that refer to how many extra hours that enables a front-line police officer to spend out on the ground, which I am happy to provide you with in a moment. Other efforts are being undertaken, and I might invite the police commissioner to add to that in terms of more process-orientated issues.

Cmmr STEVENS: In addition to the technology opportunity that the minister has outlined, there are other aspects to our technology program, which features as a part of our 2020 reform program as well. The introduction of portable fingerprint scanners provides a streamlined process for police officers to identify people they are engaging with on the front line without having to undertake significant inquiries to establish identity. The one drawback with that legislation at the moment is that we can only do that on a voluntary basis with people, as opposed to being able to require them to provide a fingerprint on a portable scanner.

In addition to the ruggedised tablets, we have also produced portable data terminals (PDAs) for police officers on the front line so that they can access our systems while they are out and about. We have introduced body-worn video, with our expectation being that it will dramatically reduce the number of matters that require police officers to attend court, with the capture of activities, behaviours and admissions on video at the time of a police officer interacting with a person.

We have also introduced an adult cautioning model, which shows significant savings in police officer time by being able to deal with low-level matters that would ordinarily have been an impost on police officer time through charging, preparation of a brief and court file, and attending court, for matters that invariably end up with little or no penalty out of the court process.

We have also sought changes and participated in discussions about changing legislation, particularly in relation to the Summary Procedures Act, which streamlines the documentation that goes with arrest and report files, once again to make it easier for police officers. We are looking at technology opportunities for police officers to appear in some court matters by video link, to reduce travel time and waiting time. We are also continually reviewing our systems, looking for opportunities to remove red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, but there is a non-negotiable that comes with our legislative obligations in terms of managing prisoners, managing the court processes and the material that is required by that process.

Another initiative that we have been working on for some time, along with courts and the DPP, is an electronic brief model, where we are actually moving more closely to a paperless brief, which frees up officer time in terms of having to produce multiple copies of arrest and report documentation and case files.

Mr KNOLL: If I can move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 125, and I assume this is where it sits in the crime and criminal justice services program. Can I ask what the FTE allocation or how many people actually work in the e-crimes branch?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: We will have to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: Does the branch produce statistics around the number of items they process on a yearly basis?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have any of those figures available and can you commit to taking on notice—what I am looking for is the number of items they have processed in this last financial year versus years previous. Also, I invite the minister to comment on what the current turnaround time is between items that cycle through e-crimes? I understand completely that there are some that gain higher priority than others, but is there an average turnaround time that exists for standard matters?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take that on notice. Just for the sake of clarity so we get you the information you are after, in terms of processing e-crime matters, are you talking about where, for instance, information is trying to be extracted from a tablet—

Mr KNOLL: A tablet or a phone. For instance, I understand that when you are trying to pinch someone for drug dealing, evidence of text messages back and forth is pretty important. You need to extract that from their phone. Certainly, when it comes to child pornography and those sorts of claims, getting through to a laptop is important. I understand that there are some special cases, but then there would be a lot of volume cases, I would have thought, especially in relation to drug-related crime. I am just trying to get an understanding of what the turnaround time is for a matter like that.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take that on notice, but I will just invite the commissioner to add any remarks, if he has any.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister. We are able to produce that material. We do keep a record of the processing time frames, but I think it is worth noting that this is what you might describe as a growth area and one that we do find challenging to keep pace with. Historically, when we were talking about forensic examination of technology devices, we were talking about crimes that related to people conducting fraud offences and that sort of thing where we are looking to search records, but we have seen this exponential growth in this particular area where we now find that almost every crime that we investigate has a technology component that requires some type of examination of a device or of a technology platform, such as social media, where we are looking for evidence to support or refute allegations.

This growth does present significant challenges and we are currently reviewing our e-crime strategy and developing a plan which we hope will, in some respects, mitigate those challenges. Having said that, with the way technology continues to evolve, it is one of those areas where we are going to continually face challenges, and we are acutely aware of the expectations of the court and the DPP in terms of us fulfilling our obligations to produce evidence for those processes.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Minister, just while we are talking about technology and IT, I am wondering if you could, in reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 120, inform the committee about the implementation of the facial recognition technology by SAPOL?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you for your question because it is an important one and speaks again to the government's commitment to having a technologically advanced police force. At the 2014 election, Labor committed to providing police with all the latest technology we reasonably could provide, and that included a facial recognition technology commitment. NEC Australia was awarded the contract, worth $780,000, to provide SAPOL access to the NEC software that is considered to be the fastest and most accurate facial matching software in the world.

In practical terms, the software enables SAPOL to search, scan and monitor images and video of suspects against databases, leading to the faster and more accurate identification of persons of interest. To alleviate any concerns that may exist, I can assure members of the committee that the facial recognition technology does not keep records of people's photos or video that it is seeking to match against the existing database. If a match is made, it is against existing mugshot databases. This means the records of the individual concerned are already within the system as a consequence of a previous incident.

South Australia will be a nation leader as the only state to have this advanced technology, which is also used by the Australian Federal Police. This is yet more support for Adelaide's efforts to maintain our place as one of the safest cities in the world and continue our work to improve our standing in the community. I am pleased to advise that the SAPOL facial recognition technology went live in March this year, following a successful trial period. At the end of the trial period, there were seven arrests attributed to the use of facial recognition technology, with an additional 41 persons identified as potential matches to persons of interest requiring further investigation.

Investment in this state-of-the-art technology ensures that our police have the tools and technology needed to most effectively protect and serve our community. The implementation of this technology greatly assists in reducing the time officers spend on identity management activities and allows them to be directed back onto the streets, in turn keeping people safe. Projects to deliver technology such as facial recognition and body-worn cameras demonstrate the understanding that this government has of the increasingly important role that technology will play in 21^st century policing. We are committed to continuing to embrace technological advancements to ensure that we are equipped for smart policing.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Again, my question refers to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 120. Minister, can you inform the committee about the new virtual firearms simulator that is operational, as I understand it, at the Police Academy?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Again, I thank the member for Ashford for her question. This is a recent development, and last week I had the pleasure of witnessing the new 300-degree virtual reality firearms simulator that is now in operation at the Police Academy, providing police officers with enhanced training for high-risk situations. The $480,000 simulator will be used to train cadets, refresh skills of front-line police officers and provide advanced training for STAR Group officers.

The simulator provides highly realistic scenarios—rather confronting, in some instances—across a range of screens, allowing officers to hone and develop communication skills, decision-making, de-escalation abilities and rapid response. The simulator will also be used for testing officers across marksmanship, pistol and electronic device (taser) abilities. Incorporating a live-fire range, the simulator will also save costs on ammunition, reduce environmental impact of firearms training, boost safety and reduce the number of training days cancelled due to things like unfavourable weather.

The state government continues to modernise our police force, with the simulator complementing other technologies such as body-worn cameras, rugged tablets, facial recognition technology and fingerprint scanners. We have obtained one of the most state-of-the-art firearms training simulators available in Australia. The cost of the system included the computer system and software, data projector, both day and night tracking camera capability, firearm simulators and a range of hardware to ensure safe training. I am delighted that the simulator is in operation at the academy at exactly the right time, with such a large number of cadets at the academy as we speak.

It is important to note that the use of firearms in the South Australian community is relatively rare, and it is a good thing that it is only in the rare instance that men and women in uniform find themselves having to use firearms. However, they do remain an important tool and it is important that the South Australian public can have confidence in the fact that when a uniformed police officer decides to use a firearm they are doing it with the best training available to them. It is also important to remember—and this is a really important point—that this simulator is as much about training police officers about when not to use a firearm as it is about when to use one.

This is not just a training device aimed at improving marksmanship, it is also about training officers in de-escalation, which is an equally important capability that we obviously want our police officers to have. It is a fantastic piece of technology and I think it is going a long way to assist the Police Academy at a very busy time.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Minister, you mentioned the opportunity of body-worn video technology (I think this refers to the same reference I have already mentioned). This is an issue in the news at the moment, certainly in the US. Can you inform the committee about the rollout of body-worn video technology by SAPOL?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Thank you for that important question. Body-worn video, in my own assessment, is an outstanding piece of technology; more importantly, the assessment of the men and women in SAPOL who are now using this technology is that it is a great advance. In May, I had the great privilege of joining South Australia Police as they began the statewide rollout of body-worn cameras for all front-line officers, which sees SAPOL as a leader in the nation with the deployment of this technology. This rollout realises the commitment made by the state government in the 2014-15 state budget of $5.9 million to introduce the technology.

Body-worn cameras will enhance officer security and further increase the public's confidence in what is already the most professional police force in the nation, while also delivering faster and more accurate outcomes for the criminal justice sector. Following a thorough acquisition and trial process, Communications Design and Management Pty Ltd was awarded the tender for the body-worn video technology. The contract will see all uniformed police patrols wearing body-worn video as they perform their patrol duties within three years, with 1,000 cameras in operation by the 2019-20 financial year. This staged response enables SAPOL to handle the download of any recordings.

Body-worn cameras are compact, light and thin, and mount easily on the SAPOL uniform. This enables the camera to be visible to the public at all times. The camera is an extremely versatile, wide-lens camera that provides the capture of quality vision and also ensures that it can be used by SAPOL in all conditions across the state, including at night. The camera can record audio and vision but only records when activated. The activation of the camera is a single one-touch activation and, when activated, two red lights at the base of the camera are illuminated. The cameras are subject to a secure encrypted and locked system, with any video recorded able to be downloaded only on the SAPOL system using SAPOL software.

SAPOL is confident that the deployment of this technology will result in an increase in transparency, which will only serve to further strengthen public sentiment towards SAPOL through improving the quality of evidence, resulting in a reduction of not guilty pleas and reduced time and costs for legal and court proceedings. They are confident it will also see a reduction in the need for use of force by police, improving the safety of police officers and reducing the number of complaints against police officers, whilst also providing officers with an invaluable opportunity to review and improve their practices on the beat.

Members of the public will have already seen officers on the beat using cameras in places like Hindley Street, and will soon see the cameras deployed in the Traffic Support Branch before they are rolled out to every front-line officer in the state. The rollout of body-worn cameras is the latest in this state government's desire to ensure our police force is a 21^stcentury police force and the most advanced in the nation. The first deployment of body-worn video was in May this year, with full deployment expected to be over the three-year period.

The schedule is to be progressively deployed, and 230 body-worn cameras and supporting infrastructure will be supplied to the following locations for use by front-line police by December this year: 80 cameras to the Traffic Support Branch, 50 cameras to the SA Police Academy, 30 cameras to the Public Transport Safety Branch and approximately 70 cameras to the Eastern Adelaide LSA. An analysis of the current legislative environment has indicated there is no requirement to amend or require legislative change at this stage. The body-worn devices will primarily be used by front-line operational police.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a supplementary question: in regard to the firearms training simulator, what did you say was the total amount that cost?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised it was $480,000.

Mr PEDERICK: In the budget it says $380,000, and for the 2016-17 budget it was going to be $190,000, so there are some anomalies there.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The figure I have quoted may well include the operating cost associated with it, as distinct from just the procurement.

Mr PEDERICK: So, what you are saying is that the operating cost is separate from the total project cost.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It depends how you define 'total project cost'.

Mr PEDERICK: All I am saying is that your figure is $100,000 different to what is written in your budget.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that the figure you are referring to is most likely to be the direct capital cost, as distinct from other associated costs; for instance, the software licensing component of the exercise or other operational costs that are associated with using the simulator, as distinct from just the installation of the physical infrastructure at the Police Academy.

Mr PEDERICK: In what part of the budget would we find those operational costs, minister?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: You will find them within the broad, general operating revenue figures that you see within the operating budget, I am advised.

Mr KNOLL: I have a supplementary on that line as well. Obviously, police officers need to go through their yearly IMOS requalification. Will this be used in addition to the current regime or will it be used to supplement it?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It is a good question; I am glad you asked. It is important to understand that the firearms simulator is not there to completely substitute the other training that is already in place. Live firearm training will continue to be used, but the new simulator will work with and complement the other training components that already exist. So, it is in addition to, rather than in substitution of.

Mr KNOLL: Except that in your answer before you said that it will, essentially, help to offset the cancellation of training due to bad weather, but surely that training was going to be live fire outdoor training, which will then be substituted by indoor simulator training?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there are also indoor live firing ranges, as well as outdoor ones. This will be a complement, so that when an outdoor event might be scheduled, for instance, the indoor facility could be used, but not to substitute other training activities. So, this is very much about adding to the existing suite of firing training options that are available to SAPOL.

Mr KNOLL: So, they will still need to do—I do not know what it is, 60 live fire rounds or whatever—the live fire test as part of getting their requalifications.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes. I will just add to that, though: with the simulator, I cannot tell you—having gone down and had a look at it—how impressed I was with how real it is. It is very much a simulator. The firearm used in those simulators is an actual SAPOL firearm but with a different cartridge in it so that the recoil, the weight, the pressure on the trigger—everything—is incredibly similar. It should not be confused with some sort of video exercise; it is very much a simulator.

Mr KNOLL: I will move back to e-crimes. In relation to this strategy I was asking what sort of time line there is on the development of that e-crime strategy.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I might invite the commissioner to answer that, being of an operational nature.

Commr STEVENS: We are very close to having completed that strategy. It is important that we complete that prior to making any changes to the way we deliver our services within the e-crime space. We are looking to enhance our capability, but I am strongly of the view that, rather than take an ad hoc scattergun approach, we should do it as part of a comprehensive suite of strategies. So, it will be this year but I do not have an exact date.

Mr KNOLL: As part of that, are you looking to quantify how much shorter the turnaround time will be or is there some sort of measure around reduction in court delays that you would be looking to implement as part of the strategy? Is there a target that you will be setting around reduction of court delays?

Commr STEVENS: I am not aware of a specific target but the overall aim is to be as efficient as we can in processing e-crime exhibits. Some of the measures that we are looking at are upskilling people on the front line to do some rudimentary analysis of technology devices, providing them with appropriate software and tools so that they can do that effectively without damaging the evidentiary value of those items, and making sure that we have a proper triaging system in place, we have the correct skill set to manage those devices when they come in, and perform those functions as quickly as possible.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have any understanding of how regular court cases have to be delayed because of slow processing from e-crimes?

Commr STEVENS: I do not have specific details on how frequently that occurs but I am aware of occasions where matters are adjourned and, in the worst-case scenario, where members of the judiciary express their dissatisfaction with the fact that forensic evidence is not available. It is one of those areas that we micromanage and wherever there are any instances where we become aware of pressure being placed upon SAPOL by the courts, we endeavour to satisfy that judicial requirement as quickly as possible. However, it must be acknowledged that the rapid expansion in the number of items that have to be processed presents a significant challenge and it is one that we are acutely aware of.

Mr KNOLL: I have heard one anecdotal case where cases were delayed by years because of slow processing. Is that something you are aware of or do you think it is more likely to be months?

The CHAIR: I will interject here. The minister can answer this if he wishes but this is really a question for the Attorney-General. Notwithstanding the commissioner's direct knowledge of these matters or opinions about these matters, this is a question for the Attorney-General, but the minister may choose or not to answer.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No, that is fine.

The CHAIR: So, let's move on.

Mr KNOLL: So, e-crimes branch does not sit within SAPOL?

The CHAIR: No, e-crimes branch sits within SAPOL. The courts—

Mr KNOLL: I am talking about the conduct of e-crimes branch.

The CHAIR: No, you are talking about court processes, which sits with the Courts Administration Authority.

Mr KNOLL: The question I was asking was around whether or not the delay in processing items for e-crimes branch was months or years.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is right, but you are assuming the minister has knowledge of these delays, which he does, anecdotally, presumably, but it is not his responsibility.

Mr KNOLL: I did not realise you needed protection, minister, but thank God the member for Little Para is in your corner.

The CHAIR: I am not offering protection; I am trying to keep you on the straight and narrow, member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: You are just trying to obfuscate the people getting answers as to how their court system is working.

The CHAIR: No. You had a chance to question the Attorney-General about how the court system was working. He was here all day, the other day. I was here too.

Mr KNOLL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 125, summary of program 2.1. Minister, in the Stop the Hurt report you announced—was it—$549,000 of new money for sniffer dogs? I assume that SAPOL will be training and looking after those dogs?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I can confirm that police dogs are under the control of police, yes.

Mr KNOLL: So, the extra $549,000, how much extra resource does that equate to?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice—let me just double-check—is that it is two dogs, and that cost represents more than just the dogs themselves, albeit that highly trained and skilled dogs are expensive. There is also the training of the handlers associated with those dogs, rather than just the dogs themselves. So, that figure that you referred to is the overall cost.

Mr KNOLL: I am also wanting to ask: is that half a million dollars ongoing over the forward estimates or is that a single year, and then the rest of the operation will be absorbed?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Over the four years.

Mr KNOLL: And that is two dogs and two handlers?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: And also the associated equipment as necessary, for instance, things like motor vehicles, of which there will be two.

Mr KNOLL: No problems. Thanks very much. Again, the same program, Crime and Criminal Justice Services. In relation to intervention orders, I am after the number of intervention orders that police have granted and the number of intervention orders that have been breached over the 2016-17 financial year.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I will make sure we get the right numbers, so just bear with us. For the benefit of the committee, it might be worthwhile providing a bigger picture in terms of what has happened regarding those numbers over a sustained period of time. In terms of police interim intervention orders for the year July 2013 to June 2014, there were 1,377 police interim intervention orders; the following year that number went up to 2,883; and in the year following that (2015-16) the number became 3,305.

In the first six months of last financial year, that is, from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016, that number was 1,678. I do not have the specific number for the second half of the financial year, but for the sake of the argument, if you were to double that, you can see that that would also represent growth on the previous year.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have numbers there over those same financial years for the number of breaches of those intervention orders?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I do not have those at hand; I am happy to take that on notice. In respect of that growth, it is worth commenting on that, and I will let the police commissioner comment on it more as well. That growth represents a substantial challenge for SAPOL, but more importantly it represents the effort SAPOL is putting into the area of domestic violence. I do not think the community should be alarmed at that number being a reflection upon a growth, necessarily, in the commission of domestic violence, as distinct from police starting to be able to police the area with more efficiency than was previously the case.

Domestic violence represents a very tragic and important challenge within the community, and the growth in these numbers on one level is utterly tragic, but on another level should provide a degree of confidence that this is an area of work to which SAPOL is wholeheartedly committed and is taking very seriously. I will ask the commissioner to add to that.

Cmmr STEVENS: To reinforce those comments, I do not think it is any secret that domestic violence response plays a significant part of the work done by front-line police, and with our focus on positive action to protect victims of domestic violence it has an impact on how we prioritise our resources. We are looking to invest more resources into the domestic violence response to ensure that we meet the community's demand.

The current effort and focus we have had on domestic violence has seen an increase in reporting of domestic violence matters, and it is reasonable to propose that that increase in reporting comes about as a result of increased confidence within the community that their matter will be taken seriously and that there will be positive action as a result. It is not just as a result of the effort of South Australia Police but also is, I believe, reflective of the way domestic violence is understood by the community and dealt with by the courts and the support agencies that are providing assistance and services to domestic violence victims.

Mr KNOLL: Are there specifically tasked domestic violence roles within SAPOL?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes, there are. Each local service area has a family and domestic violence investigation group.

Mr KNOLL: And do you have any gross numbers of what sort of FTE count that would be?

Cmmr STEVENS: I do not have those with us, but we can supply those.

Mr KNOLL: And is this new family and domestic violence team a 2020 initiative, or is it something that has been around for a little bit longer than that?

Cmmr STEVENS: Each local service area has had family and domestic violence investigators for as long as I can remember. The commitment to increasing the resources in those areas is as a direct result of the work that has been done. A couple of years ago we established a Family and Domestic Violence Branch, which is a central branch coordinating the policy, training and oversight of domestic violence matters at a senior management level, and we are also looking to enhance that capability at the moment as well.

Mr KNOLL: Fantastic, thank you. I now move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 121, Public Safety. Obviously, the minister announced in March, and enacted in about August/September last year, the changed arrangements to police station opening hours. This was about reorientating of resources. I am trying to get a handle on what the quantum of redirected resources has been. How much was saved by reducing police station opening hours, and where were those resources diverted to?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am very glad the member for Schubert has asked this question, and we are very grateful for the opportunity to talk about this, because I am very aware and very conscious of the fact that some members of this parliament are out there suggesting that, somehow, the community is less safe as a result of the adjustment to police station hours, and suggesting that, somehow, this is resulting in less service for the community, when that could not be further from the truth.

The government and I are on the record as supporting the police commissioner and his being able to use the authority and responsibility invested in him to exercise his leadership around operational matters, including the operation of police hours. The member for Schubert may not be aware that very few crimes are committed in the lobby of police stations. They tend to occur out in the community, and I think the commissioner is incredibly wise to decide to take resources out of police stations where crimes are not necessarily being committed if that enables him to put more officers out on the beat, and that is exactly what is occurring.

In respect of your question, the objective here has never been about saving money. Indeed, it has not necessarily saved money is my advice, because those police are still employed. It is just that they are out on the beat doing the work there.

Mr KNOLL: I am simply seeking to understand what the quantum of that redirection is.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: In terms of people?

Mr KNOLL: Either FTE count or dollars.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that closer to the implementation of some of these changes, it was able to result in approximately an extra 30 police officers being able to be returned to the front line, and they are able to be used at the disposal of the LSA commanders as is operationally required. That is extraordinary. That is a big number of extra police out on the front line who would otherwise be stuck behind the counter of a police station if the opposition had their way and sought to impose upon the police commissioner the requirement that those officers instead be behind the counter in a police station.

Mr KNOLL: Minister, post these changes, has there been an increase in the FTE resource count given to any of the 24-hour police stations either at Port Adelaide, Elizabeth, Hindley Street or Christies Beach?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Just to understand your question, are you asking: have additional resources been provided to respective LSAs?

Mr KNOLL: No, what I am trying to get at is that some stations have reduced their hours. Have the remaining 24-hour police stations been given a greater resource to cope with the increased workload?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: My advice is that there is a degree of discretion that is invested in LSA commanders to be able to make decisions around how they allocate their resources in terms of police station hours—administrative functions versus being out on the road—which is again an important point. The level of discretion that an LSA commander will be able to exercise in regard to operations is dramatically constricted if you have a politician deciding to impose upon the police when stations have to be open or closed. Quite frankly, I think such a policy compromises the safety of the community.

Mr KNOLL: Have any of the LSA commanders used that discretion to increase resources in any of the 24-hour police stations?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I do not have any specific information on hand, but I am advised that it would be reasonable to assume that some LSA commanders have used that discretion in such a way, yes.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 120. I assume I am talking here about the minor capital works, vehicles and equipment annual program. I assume, obviously, that at the moment front-line transit police are using Holden Commodore vehicles. When is that contract likely to end, given we are only months away from the Holden closure?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to take on notice some components of that question, but let me attempt to answer it all and then you can ask me to take any particular components on notice. Yes, of course SAPOL complies with the state's procurement policies generally, and that means that the overall majority of police vehicles—the majority being represented by general patrol cars—are Holdens, produced at Elizabeth. That continues to be the case.

However, of course, with the impending closure of General Motors at Elizabeth, SAPOL does have a strategy in place in terms of procurement beyond that. That process is well and truly underway. I have been briefed regarding that, but there is a commitment to continue to purchase Holdens right up until, essentially, the closure of Elizabeth, with the view of having a new police car following that. That work, clearly, has to commence early, because there is a long lead time for putting a police vehicle operationally on the ground. That exercise is underway and of course, when that process is complete, there will be a public announcement accordingly.

Mr KNOLL: Has any decision been made on a replacement vehicle?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No.

Mr KNOLL: I assume there is a continual upgrade leasing program. How much was spent on leasing patrol vehicles in 2016-17?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Maybe it would be best if we take that specific number on notice.

Mr KNOLL: If you could also take on notice what the budget is for 2017-18.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to do that.

Mr KNOLL: In relation to body-worn cameras, when you were reading out the list of cameras I did not catch them to write them down. Are you able to provide a total figure of how many cameras have been purchased to date?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I mentioned the rollout schedule of the next batch and I am happy to repeat that. There are 230 cameras that we are aiming to deploy by December this year.

Mr KNOLL: I am sorry—will be deployed?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: Are these in addition to the existing stock?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: That 230, let's say, is between 1 July and 31 December?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Reasonably, yes; by December this year.

Mr KNOLL: So, how many cameras were in place at 30 June this year?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: They would be the ones that have already been allocated to Hindley Street, which is approximately 30.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have a total budget for this? I assume it sits in the high-tech crime fighting equipment budget—$4.2 million is the total project cost that is stated in here, but I assume that is for the rugged tablets and other things as well. The total budget cost for the purchase of the 1,000 body-worn cameras.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Which number were you after?

Mr KNOLL: The total budget cost for the purchase of the 1,000 body-worn cameras.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I want to be clear about this, because there are number of ways—do you want just the physical—

Mr KNOLL: Just the physical capital, because operationally, I assume, it would be pretty difficult.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I have a figure that includes the operating expenditure. If you want, I am happy to take on notice the actual physical camera.

Mr KNOLL: I will take whatever I can get at this stage.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Sure. For the 2017-18 financial year, that cost is $1.554 million, and for the two years following it continues to go up.

Mr KNOLL: The annual report for 2015-16 says that the cameras will be rolled out over the next three years. I assume that it started 2016-17, 2017-18 and then 2018-19.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: And continues in 2019-20.

Mr KNOLL: So, it will now continue into 2019-20?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is my advice, yes.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have any figures for what the rollout is going to be? You have given me until the end of December. Is that 230 figure for 2017-18, or are there others that will be purchased in the second half of this financial year?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: We will take that on notice. As I mentioned earlier, there is a rollout scheduled to cover all front-line officers, in effect, across the state. That occurs over a three-year period. I have outlined in pretty thorough detail what that is between now and the end of the year with the Traffic Support Branch, Police Academy, Public Transport Safety Branch and then the Eastern Adelaide LSA.

In terms of the more detailed schedule beyond that, I am happy to take that on notice. In fact, it may be the case that that level of planning has not exactly happened right at the moment, but I am happy to take that on notice. We have a pretty detailed schedule of works between now and the end of the year, and I assume that will continue to be on that.

Mr KNOLL: Just a quick question, if I could move to the activity indicators on page 127, from 2015-16 there was a halving of the number of Blue Light discos, or at least a halving of the number of people who attended Blue Light discos. Is that a policy decision, or have kids found something else to do?

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Did you used to go to them?

Mr KNOLL: I think I went to one once.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The number that you refer to, as it reads, is the number of people attending the functions.

Mr KNOLL: Yes, it has halved.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is what it says, yes.

Mr KNOLL: Yes, so my question is why? Is that a specific policy decision, or is it because kids are Netflixing and chilling?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I might invite the commissioner to answer that.

Cmmr STEVENS: I hope it is not my kids. Blue Light is an incorporated association that is supported by SAPOL. It is essentially underwritten or staffed by police officers who are undertaking community service activities, quite often in their own time. There is a change in the nature of what children are doing and what they find interesting. Blue Light is continuously reviewing the sorts of activities and opportunities they are providing for children to become engaged, and it is a matter for each Blue Light sub-branch to determine whether or not they are going to run these sorts of events, and I would suggest that the decisions as to whether they schedule further events would be based on the level of patronage they get from past events.

Mr KNOLL: It is a personal interest, that is all. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, and the activity indicators on page 132. Minister, can you give an explanation as to why it is projected that there is going to be a 10 per cent decrease in the number of driver screening tests conducted in 2017-18?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It is a good question and one that I have asked previously myself. The way this works is that the number of tests that are forecast to be conducted has remained relatively steady, but you will see that in previous years, if you go to the statistics beyond the ones in the budget papers, SAPOL has consistently exceeded that number, and it would be a reasonable expectation that that will continue into the future.

Mr KNOLL: So you would expect it to be back up around 550,000?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It has remained relatively consistent on those levels, and I think it is reasonable in this instance for past numbers and past practice to be a predictor for the future.

Mr KNOLL: There has not been any policy change or resourcing change?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No. I might just invite the commissioner to add some remarks.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister. I would just like to point out that there was some criticism levelled at SAPOL in relation to a reduction from past years' activities. I think what must be noted is that our targets have remained constant and our history shows that we exceed those targets. I am just putting on the record, I suppose, that the observers who may criticise the organisation for not having maintained the same levels of activity are probably not giving due regard to the fact that we continue to exceed the budgeted targets that we stipulate.

Mr KNOLL: Turning to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 125, the description talks about innovative techniques to confiscate illicit profits and assets. I assume that the Confiscation Branch would sit within that. How much were confiscated assets in 2016-17 in dollar terms? And do you have the figures for the backwards and forwards years?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Unfortunately, we do not have those statistics at hand. They are recorded, so I am happy to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: Could you take that on notice for 2016-17, 2015-16 and 2014-15? I do not know if you can budget for these things going forward.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that there is no budget effort going forward, but in terms of figures recorded in the past, that is something I can take on notice and endeavour to get to you.

Mr KNOLL: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 120, Investing expenditure. How many CCTV cameras are covered by SAPOL?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I have the numbers of CCTV cameras that are available within the Adelaide city council. Would that be of use?

Mr KNOLL: Yes. I assume the Adelaide city council has some. I do not know if SAPOL has any themselves, but what I am looking for is the total number that are monitored at the moment by, is it the protective services branch?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is right. In the Adelaide city council there are cameras that are owned by the council themselves but that are monitored by the Police Security Services Branch. That is currently 111 cameras: 103 within the CBD and eight in North Adelaide.

Mr KNOLL: These are all Adelaide city council-owned cameras and SAPOL monitors them, and that is the arrangement for all of them. Are there any other cameras that are monitored by Police Security Services?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: For the sake of accuracy I think it might be appropriate to take that on notice so that we can give you the precise numbers.

Mr KNOLL: I might ask a bit more of a general question then. Has SAPOL done any work to talk to other CCTV camera operators, licensed venues, about whether or not they can be connected up to the same monitoring network?

Cmmr STEVENS: We do liaise with our stakeholders in the liquor licensing industry and in the retail industry as well, particularly in those high-volume areas. There are challenges in integrating privately-owned CCTV into our monitoring network. We are looking at the options to achieve that, but in order for that sort of regime to be effective we have to have some capacity to stipulate what type of technologies are being installed, how they are managed and monitored, how they fit into the network.

In my observations of other jurisdictions, both in Australia and overseas, I have seen very successful outcomes as a result of being able to tap into a broader network, but there are those technology challenges to be dealt with before we can achieve that. Our current practice is that through our liaison with those various stakeholders we access their CCTV vision on a needs basis. We do not have any active live monitoring.

Mr KNOLL: I assume that when it comes to evidence gathering timing is not a factor, but when there is potentially a live situation ongoing have you experienced delays in getting access to that footage? That is, have the licensed venues been compliant and happy for you to come in and have a look straightaway?

Cmmr STEVENS: Generally, there is a high level of cooperation.

Mr KNOLL: Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 127, and activity indicators for drug diversions. I see that they have been fairly steady over the past 12 months. Again, because this is my first time in this shadow portfolio, can you outline who conducts the drug diversion program and also how the process works? I assume a copper gives a slip to someone they pinch and—

Cmmr STEVENS: The process works where a police officer deals with a person who has a small quantity of a controlled substance in their possession, a simple possession offence. That matter is dealt with by the police officer at that time making contact with the drug diversion program and scheduling an appointment for the individual concerned.

Mr KNOLL: So, the police officer schedules—

Cmmr STEVENS: We facilitate that interaction—

Mr KNOLL: You do?

Cmmr STEVENS: Exactly. The process is that where the prosecution, for want of a better word, is withheld pending the person successfully completing their obligations under the drug diversion program, that drug diversion is undertaken by Drug and Alcohol Services—

Mr KNOLL: DASSA?

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you—not by SAPOL. On successful completion of the obligation, the matter is finalised. If the person does not attend, then the prosecution is enlivened and we proceed down the court path.

Mr KNOLL: Is that just for cannabis or is that also for other illicit drugs?

Cmmr STEVENS: It is for all illicit substances under a prescribed amount.

Mr KNOLL: So, what happens when someone does not complete the program is that the simple offence charge gets held and then, obviously, reinstated. Do you have any figures on the multiple use of that program in 2016-17? I do not think I have anything here.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: We will have to take those numbers on notice.

Mr KNOLL: Does SAPOL provide any funding to DASSA to provide this program?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No.

Mr KNOLL: I assume that would come out of somewhere else. Is the program free to the participant?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: So, the only cost to SAPOL of administering the program is the work of the police officer to monitor the progress. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 128, under highlights, you talk about processing over 33,000 prisoners through police holding cells. I am interested in the use of the term 'prisoner'. We are not talking about how many people you have arrested and we are not talking about remandees. Are we talking about sentenced prisoners?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Police prisoners.

Mr KNOLL: So, 33,000 people were arrested and held. They are arrested and some of them are out on bail and some of them then become remandees.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Correct.

Mr KNOLL: But the act of arresting and locking someone up is 33,000—that is the figure we are getting to.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The commissioner will correct me if I am wrong, but once a person is taken into police custody, they will fall into this statistic.

Mr KNOLL: Do you have this figure for 2015-16?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I will take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: And for a couple of financial years back from that, as well.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Sorry, I have the number at hand. In 2015-16, the number of prisoners processed through police holding facilities was 34,530.

Mr KNOLL: 34,530 in 2015-16. Do you have 2014-15 there?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No.

Mr KNOLL: Okay. Is this budgeted to keep fairly consistent for this coming financial year?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I will have to get you the number for that.

Mr KNOLL: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 119, net cost of services. What is the value of salary overpayments? I do not know if you guys get paid through Shared Services—people get overpaid. Do you have a balance of how much salary overpayment is due to be recovered from police officers as at 30 June 2017?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: No, we do not have the number at hand.

Mr KNOLL: Could you take that on notice?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, we are happy to take that on notice.

Mr KNOLL: Are there any SAPOL staff seconded to managing this process?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that Shared Services does it for SAPOL.

Mr KNOLL: Could you take on notice a breakdown of how much the FTE account is for, for managing these overpayments? I know what happens with other departments.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry, but Shared Services are the appropriate people to be asked that question.

Mr KNOLL: Sure, except that I am sure you get charged corporate overheads for what they do.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Again—

The CHAIR: But the minister is not responsible for it; that is the point.

Mr KNOLL: You are always very helpful, Chair. I will turn to Recruit 313. What was the attrition rate for sworn officers in 2016-17? I am on page 119, Workforce summary.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Last year, there were 134 police who separated from the police force. I am advised that there were 150 FTEs but 134 actual.

Mr KNOLL: Obviously, there was an increased budget allocation last year—a significant sum of $40 million or $50 million and some of it was in relation to Recruit 313—do you have a total budget cost of what it has cost to deliver these extra 313 police officers?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It might be best to take that number on notice.

Mr KNOLL: This is across various parts of the budget but it adds up to about $40 million. I am looking at page 122 in the financial commentary where it states, 'indexation of expenses and additional police resources in 2017-18'. It is a phrase that is used in a number of different spots across the budget and I am keen to understand what that means.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Can you just repeat that?

Mr KNOLL: At page 122, the financial commentary, 2017-18 budget versus 2016-17 estimated result:

The $12.1 million increase in net cost is primarily due to:

indexation of expenses and additional police resources in 2017-18 ($13.8 million)

I am looking for some sort of breakdown because that same phrase is used across a number of different sub-programs and I am keen to understand it.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It means what you would reasonably expect it to: that the indexation refers to the associated increases that come from changes in things like CPI or changes to wages through an enterprise bargaining agreement and so forth. So, the reasonable increase in expenses associated with unavoidable costs such as changes in the CPI, for instance.

Mr KNOLL: Some of this, I assume, would be in relation to the—has the new EB just come into effect now?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The short answer is that it has been in effect for 12 months but it gets a bit confusing around operative start times even though it might have been pre or post the negotiation period, but it has been in effect for a year.

Mr KNOLL: I will move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 118 in relation to the Firearms Branch. I am keen to understand: the new act and the regulations have come into force and I would like to put on the record that I think it was a good outcome of this parliament that everybody was able to work together for a pretty sensible solution that I think balanced the rights of gun owners with public safety. I am sure there are some people who are not happy but, in these situations, not everyone can be happy. Can you give us a rundown of the notification that has been sent to the 66,000 firearms licence holders in South Australia? How are people going to be notified of these changes?

The CHAIR: While the minister is conferring I would just like to welcome to the Estimates Committee the Royal Society for the Blind from Port Noarlunga. They are guests of the member assisting the Treasurer, the member for Kaurna.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: There is a substantial communications exercise that has been associated with the changes in laws. Again, sorry, I will just take this opportunity also to reflect upon the member for Schubert's remarks around the hard work of the parliament to get this done. I think the person who probably deserves the most credit is the member for Light, who just so happens to be in the chamber with us, who undertook the start of this exercise and largely saw it through. It is very much a substantial effort that I think the member for Light deserves a lot of credit for, but also a key number of people in the Firearms Branch who did a lot of work as well. I will not attempt to name them all, but there were a number.

So, yes, upon that exercise being completed there is a communication strategy associated with that, because there are changes that have implications for registered firearms owners. The member for Light has, I think, a copy of that correspondence, but also it importantly refers—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: That is right. The direct mail correspondence with registered firearms owners, I am advised, also refers to websites and so forth, where they can get extra information as well.

Mr KNOLL: There are some fairly significant and onerous changes around security arrangements for firearms. I am talking specifically about the provision of strongrooms or the increased requirements for surveillance or things like that. Will Firearms Branch undertake to proactively contact the people for which that applies? I assume it starts to get a little bit technical, and there needs to be a negotiation around how these new regulations are implemented?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I think the short answer to that question is that yes, there is direct contact, I am advised, with firearms owners through things like direct mail. Presuming that falls into the definition of what you characterise as direct contact, then yes, there is direct contact with firearms owners.

Mr KNOLL: Can I ask how many audits of firearm licence holders were done in 2016-17?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that between 1 July 2016 and 20 May 2017 there were 2,842 audits completed. That compares to the number of 2,857 for the entirety of the previous financial year. On that basis I think it would be reasonable to assume there were more audits conducted in the financial year 2016-17 than there were in 2015-16.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, so 2,857 is for the 2015-16 financial year, and then 2,842 is for—

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It is 1 July 2016 to 20 May 2017.

Mr KNOLL: Okay, so for 11 months. Do you have a figure there of how many firearms were lost over those two financial years?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that an annual average of 450 firearms registered to licensees are to be missing, and about 500 licensees who have been in breach of security compliance provisions.

Mr KNOLL: So, 450 was for the 11 months?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am advised that it is an annual average.

Mr KNOLL: In the last couple of moments we have, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, in relation to Workforce summary. The commissioner has had a very strong focus on gender parity in dealing with our police force, and at various times it seems like the target is on track; the target is potentially not on track. Can I ask specifically, is the target to have 50 per cent of new recruits female, or is it the target for 50 per cent of the police force to be female?

Cmmr STEVENS: The target, which was set to commence on 1 January 2016, was 50 per cent of sworn recruits.

Mr KNOLL: Okay, so there is not necessarily an end date to that, so it is not as though you are trying to achieve 50 per cent of the total workforce.

Cmmr STEVENS: No. I suppose ultimately that would be the aim over time.

Mr KNOLL: As a generation cycles through.

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: How is that target going? You said there are 360 cadets at the moment.

Cmmr STEVENS: I do not have a total breakdown of the current situation, but when we commenced the intensive recruiting campaign to honour the 313 commitment, there were four courses where we were around the 46 to 42 per cent ratio of males and females. But, since then, for about the next 12 courses we are sitting around the 54 per cent mark. So, over the total life of the 313 program the target has been met.

I must stress that the obligation on me was to complete the 313 program, which essentially became the first priority, and the gender parity target became a secondary priority but one that was still expected to be honoured where possible, and I think we have achieved that quite successfully.

Mr KNOLL: Will Recruit 313 be completed by 30 June next year?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes, it will.

Mr KNOLL: And that also takes into account the attrition rate over the 2017-18 year?

Cmmr STEVENS: Yes. One unknown variable we cannot account for is any changes to attrition that are not forecast, particularly amongst recruits who separate during a training program. It is very difficult to backfill those. Our discussions with the minister and with the Police Association have highlighted that this is a genuine effort to meet that target, and it would only be those variables that potentially would impact on the number.

Mr KNOLL: So, you are looking at a scaling down of the academy post 30 June next year?

Cmmr STEVENS: That is correct. We have had to undertake significant reform to the way we deliver our training to recruits to accommodate the substantial number we have in the academy at the moment. As an example, we have gone from courses of around 22 to 28 participants to courses of 50. The simple logistics of managing that influx, in terms of providing the same level of quality training, has required a rethink of how we do that.

A lot of the changes that have come out of addressing this 313 surge have provided us the opportunity to institute generational change in our training programs that might not have occurred for years under our normal operating processes. Having said that, once we complete the 313 commitment we will revert to recruiting against attrition, so there will be a scaling down of resources within the academy, and we will once again consider how we can most effectively provide training to a different group of people, a different number, at the same time.

Mr KNOLL: I have a couple of questions in the last couple of minutes. I know you are pretty tight on the time. Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 120, in relation to the investing expenditure. How many stages are there to the police records management system?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: What do you mean by stages?

Mr KNOLL: It mentions here stages 2 to 4. I assume stage 1 has been completed but I am not certain whether there are stages beyond 4, given that this is out to June 2020. Are stages 2 to 4 to be implemented this year?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I will invite the commissioner to answer this.

Cmmr STEVENS: The next forecasted rollout is stage 5, which is the bulk of the work which needs to be undertaken to deliver the Shield program. There will be other elements that follow that but essentially the bulk of Shield will be completed by then.

The CHAIR: I am going to insist on sticking to the timetable. If you have an omnibus later on, you might be able to include some of that later.

Mr KNOLL: We are here all day.

The CHAIR: We are here all day. I declare the examination of the proposed payments completed.

Sitting suspended from 11:00 to 11:16.