Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $299,804,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $11,796,000

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $1,748,226,000

Minister:

Hon. C.L. Wingard, Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr C. Beattie, Acting Chief Executive, SAFECOM; Chief Officer, State Emergency Service.

Mr P. Fletcher, Acting Chief Officer, Metropolitan Fire Service.

Mr G. Nettleton, Chief Officer, Country Fire Service.

Ms J. Best, Business Manager, Country Fire Service.

Ms S. Di Ciocco, Business Manager, State Emergency Service.

Ms L. Lew, Business Manager, Metropolitan Fire Service.

The CHAIR: If we could please move to the portfolios of SAFECOM, Emergency Services Levy Fund, Country Fire Service, SA Metropolitan Fire Service and State Emergency Service. Of course, the minister appearing is the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 2. I call on the minister, as the changeover occurs, to introduce his advisers and to make an opening statement.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the support team here. I would like to introduce, to my very far left, Mr Greg Nettleton, the Chief Officer of the Country Fire Service. To my immediate left is Mr Chris Beattie, the Acting Chief Executive of SAFECOM and the Chief Officer of the State Emergency Service. To my right is Mr Paul Fletcher, the Acting Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Service. Behind us we also have the business managers from the Metropolitan Fire Service, Country Fire Service and State Emergency Service. I would like to put in an apology for Ms Iolanda Calabrese, the SAFECOM business manager, who unfortunately is unwell and could not be with us today. She sends her apologies and we wish her well and a speedy recovery.

For my opening statement, I would like to start by putting on the record my thanks and appreciation for the outstanding work of our emergency services sector. Year in, year out, our emergency services organisations—CFS, MFS and SES—respond to over 45,000 calls across the state. That is a lot of calls—45,000 calls. I can confidently say that the emergency services sector continues to demonstrate remarkable skill, expertise and tenacity befitting what South Australians recognise as operating among the world's very best.

As a state, we are fortunate that in times of need, we are able to rely on our men and women in uniform, and I am extremely proud of the sector's efforts. The vital work of Surf Lifesaving SA and our volunteer marine rescue units should also not be forgotten for the significant contribution they make to the safety of South Australians along our coastlines.

I also take the opportunity to thank not just the paid staff but also the volunteers, who are ably supported by the Country Fire Service Volunteers Association and the SA SES Volunteers' Association. I feel it is important to note during a time like budget estimates the fact that our emergency services sector is funded solely and entirely by the emergency services levy.

While all property owners make contributions to the ESL, thankfully very few will count themselves as beneficiaries of the services provided. But even though many households will never call upon our emergency services sector, in the unfortunate event that they need to, the public will remain blind to the badge or the truck or the colour of the uniform. They can safely and reasonably expect the nearest, fastest and most appropriate response at their doorstep.

As part of this year's budget some of the additional measures for our sector include: $5 million for CFS station upgrades; $600,000 to the MFS for additional staff to support audits of buildings with aluminium composite panels; funding for the MFS to implement a retained fire station model in Mount Barker; funding of $190,000 to Surf Life Saving SA to establish a shark spotting drone capability; an ongoing annual grant of $5,000 to each of the 22 surf lifesaving clubs; $5 million to fund a replacement for Alert SA; and support for a new and long overdue SES/CFS command centre and headquarters.

All things considered, I am fortunate to have in this portfolio some of the hardest working and most humble individuals. I would like to thank the chief officers and the chief executive for their frank advice and continued efforts. Looking ahead, the sector is in capable hands, and I look forward to continuing to work together to build upon the success that we have achieved.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, do you have an opening statement? If not, please kick us off.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, thank you, minister and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I want to go quickly to the opening statement. I note that you introduced—

The CHAIR: Can you just move us to a line item, if you could?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I am going to the opening statement which—

The CHAIR: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: —if you peruse previous estimates it is—

The CHAIR: Well, fortunately I am in charge of this one and questions are to come from budget line items. You have a chance to make an opening statement and some comments, as the member for Kaurna did on Tuesday, which were very insightful, in his opening statement—the way he used those but, please, we are not here to debate opening statements.

Mr PICTON: We gave some good opening statements.

The CHAIR: That is a matter of personal opinion, the member for Kaurna.

Mr ODENWALDER: Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94, Workforce summary. I note that you refer to Mr Beattie as the acting CE of SAFECOM. Can you explain why that would be the case? I do not for a second disparage Mr Beattie. I know he is a fine man.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am glad you don't. All the gentlemen sitting alongside me do outstanding work. The reason that I referred to Mr Beattie with that title is because the CE of SAFECOM, Mr Malcolm Jackman, is on leave.

Mr ODENWALDER: On leave—has he begun his arrangements of working part time?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, he has.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is he on leave or is it his day off?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, just to be clear: at this point in time Mr Beattie is acting in that role because Malcolm Jackman had holidays booked a while ago.

Mr ODENWALDER: Alright. I will go to the objective on Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94. I will start with the review which was announced last week in tandem with that announcement about Mr Jackman going part time. When will the terms of reference for this review be released, and what do you expect them to be looking at exactly?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Page 94, you said, and what line, sorry?

Mr ODENWALDER: Just the objective of the agency. You have announced a review into the agency and I want to know when the terms of reference will be released and what do you expect them to be looking at?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I understand where you are going with the question but I cannot quite align it to a budget line. I will give you an answer because I think I can appreciate where your question is coming from. I recently approved a request from Mr Jackman, as you pointed out, the Chief Executive of SAFECOM, to trial a part-time arrangement, working three days a week for six months. On 18 September 2018—

Mr ODENWALDER: Excuse me, minister, for six months?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, it was a trial period for six months.

Mr ODENWALDER: A trial period.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: First, I want to ask about the trial period: at the end of the trial period you will assess whether that is a satisfactory arrangement and then you will demand that he go full time, if that is necessary.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Maybe I can finish and it may—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, it was a legitimate question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —give you the answers you want.

Mr ODENWALDER: As long as we get the answer to that question and also I would like to know what days he is having off.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is answering this question and I am sure that in the fullness of his answer you will get probably a bit more than you are at the moment because you keep interrupting.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing me to finish. Again, just to give some more detail to the member: on 18 September 2018, following Mr Jackman's request, I announced that the government would be undertaking a review of SAFECOM. A small team has been established in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, led by Christine Bierbaum, to undertake the review and will work with the emergency services sector and SAFECOM to develop terms of reference, to identify appropriate governance arrangements, budgets and time frames.

A working group will be established to support the review, comprising the chief officers, the chief executive of SAFECOM and senior officials from DPC, Department of Treasury and Finance and SA Police. DPC will examine whether the functions provided by SAFECOM are delivered in the best manner. The review will examine a number of other issues, but that review and those terms of reference are being established as we speak.

Mr ODENWALDER: What do you expect this review to cost the budget? Will extra resources from SAFECOM be allocated to this review?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I just outlined, it will be done by DPC, so there is no cost to the budget. I note, though, that in a review the previous government did they got in EY consultants and it cost over $95,000. This is not that review; this is just looking at the management of SAFECOM, and I am expecting that it will be done very swiftly.

Mr ODENWALDER: How swiftly?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Very swiftly. The point I make, member for Elizabeth, is that it is not a long, drawn-out process, as has happened previously—we are just looking at that sector, at the SAFECOM management, not the whole sector, just at SAFECOM. As I pointed out in my previous answer, the chief executive went to three days a week, and that went to the head of public sector employment, the commissioner. She agreed to those terms, so we put it in as a trial for six months, as I outlined previously, and that has given us the opportunity then to go, 'Well, let's have a look at the management structure and do a review on that.' I stress the point that that has been done through DPC and not through a big costly exercise.

Mr ODENWALDER: Was it instigated by you?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: It was. And when did the idea first occur to you? Was it when he came to you asking for three days a week?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, when he went to three days a week I thought, 'Well, hang on, that's probably a good, timely opportunity to have a look at this situation.'

Mr ODENWALDER: You had never seen a need for a review before? This need for a review is precipitated entirely by his going to three days a week?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: When the chief executive went to three days a week and came to me with that plan, it made me think that this is an opportune time to have a look and do a review of the sector, as I said previously, and that is the decision I made.

Mr ODENWALDER: But if you had been looking at the sector, as you presumably have for the last six months at least, why has not this occurred to you before? If SAFECOM suddenly needs reviewing simply because the CE has chosen, for whatever reason (and we will get to that), to go to three days a week, why did it not occur to you before? What has changed? Let me put it another way: before Mr Jackman asked you to go to three days a week, had you received any submissions or had any conversations with anyone within the agencies that SAFECOM needed reviewing, was in need of some sort of shake-up?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: When I came into this role with all my portfolios, I looked at all of the portfolios. For SAFECOM specifically I have made it very clear that I looked at the operations, worked very closely with all the chiefs and acting chiefs, and they have been outstanding people doing wonderful work, engaged with people on the ground and met with the volunteers, the volunteers' association and all the key stakeholders in this industry—can I stress the point, the volunteers specifically, as to the great work they do and how much I think everyone in this place here, in both houses, appreciates what the volunteers do.

I made that decision after Mr Jackman came and said that he wanted to go to three days a week, and that triggered my saying, 'Well, let's do a review, let's have a look at the management of this', and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr ODENWALDER: When did you first became aware of Mr Jackman's desire to go to three days a week? I am using shorthand here.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: When did I become aware, as in when did he approach me with it?

Mr ODENWALDER: When did he tell you? When did you became aware? Whether he told you or whether—when did you become aware that he wished to—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am trying to think of the date, and I will not take a stab at a date. I can go away and find—

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay; was it a couple of weeks ago when you announced the review, or was it significantly before that? Was it several weeks before that? Was it months before that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It was before I announced the review that Mr Jackman came to me with this. As I said in my previous answer—

Mr ODENWALDER: I know it was before, but how long before? You can at least differentiate—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is I think being pretty fulsome.

Mr ODENWALDER: In his usual manner, sir.

The CHAIR: Patient, is what I encourage you to be.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is not in my nature, sir.

The CHAIR: I disagree. I think you are a wonderful, patient man.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I was saying, Mr Jackman came to me with the proposition of going three days a week. I went to the public sector commissioner and discussed it with her to see if it would work. She came back with the advice that we could go ahead with it for a trial period; that is what we put in place. I made abundantly clear a few moments ago that it is a six-month trial.

At that time, I made the decision that we would do a review of the SAFECOM management—a very quick review, not an over-the-top review as happened previously under the previous government that, as I pointed out, cost $95,000. This is just one done through DPC to have a look at the structure.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand that you have started a review; I think that is clear. What I am trying to establish, though, is when Mr Jackman expressed to you that he wanted to go three days a week. Was it two days before you announced the review or was it weeks before?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, it was back in July. I cannot give you an exact date but—

Mr ODENWALDER: In July?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: So why not announce a review then? If a review is necessary, I do not understand the timing. I do not understand why the two things had to coincide.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not sure—

Mr ODENWALDER: You had been having conversations since July with Mr Jackman, so that is two or three months. Why did you decide last week to grant him the three days a week and then announce a review, all at the same time, with fire season approaching?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, I am not sure that you understand the time line. I granted Mr Jackman the three day a week offering and then decided to do a review on the back of that on the proviso—

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just wondering why it took three months to grant him the three days. Why wait? If you knew from July that that is what he wanted, and presumably you think it is a good idea, why not grant him that in July?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, as I outlined, I went through that with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. We landed on that position. In the wake of that, I made the decision to do the review of SAFECOM. I think that is perfectly good timing and a reasonable thing to do.

Mr ODENWALDER: Would you have instigated the review had Mr Jackman not wanted to go to three days a week? Would this have happened anyway?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is a very hypothetical question.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a hypothetical question. This is a fairly relaxed atmosphere, is it not? It is in order?

The CHAIR: We have been allowing hypotheticals all week, rightly or wrongly.

Mr ODENWALDER: Excellent decision. You have set a precedent.

The CHAIR: To hypotheticals, there have been very wide-ranging answers from ministers, and some did not answer them at all because they are hypothetical.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is fair enough, too. I want to be as cordial and as open as I can with the member for Elizabeth. His question is hypothetical, so would I or would I not? Hypothetically, I do not know because that did not play out. What did play out is exactly what I said; that is, as I outlined a few times to you before, Malcolm went on a three day a week contract for six months, and then I decided to do the review.

Mr ODENWALDER: Let me put it in a way that is not hypothetical. Were you planning to conduct a review into SAFECOM in any case?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Hypothetically?

Mr ODENWALDER: It is not hypothetical. I said 'were you planning'. Were you planning to?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. That did trigger my decision.

Mr ODENWALDER: It had not occurred to you before?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I was looking through the operations and the way SAFECOM ran. When Malcolm went to three days a week, it gave me the opportunity to say, 'Let's do a review, and let's have a look into this.' I think I have answered that question I was going to say a dozen times but probably more now. I do not think I can be any clearer.

Mr ODENWALDER: You could probably try.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has a question.

Mr PICTON: Dixer.

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Kaurna, if you utter that word once more, you will be removed. We do not use the word Dixer in this committee because every member of the committee has an equal opportunity to ask any question as they may sit in the budget line items.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, you know I have already ruled on that all week. The member for Heysen has a question from the budget no doubt.

Mr TEAGUE: As a member with responsibility for the Adelaide Hills, this is certainly territory of interest to me. My question relates to Budget Paper 5, page 51, in relation to Alert SA, and also to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 97, regarding the fourth dot point in relation to highlights as well as the fourth dot point in relation to targets 2018-19 regarding the emergency information warning system. Minister, can you provide an update in relation to the status of the replacement Alert SA solution?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you very much, member for Heysen. Being a member in the Hills I can appreciate his interest in this and I appreciate the question. I am very pleased to give this update to the committee. Under the previous Labor government during the period from December 2017 through to January 2018, the Alert SA website and app experienced a number of significant service outages. On 7 January 2018, then minister for emergency services, the member for Kaurna, directed the decommissioning of the Alert SA app and website.

Following the decommissioning in January 2018, funding was approved to enable SAFECOM to develop a business case for the replacement Alert SA solution; $108,000 was expended on engaging expert advice to assist in the development of the business case. In February 2018 SAFECOM was provided funding for $500,000 to refine the business case, develop detailed specifications for a replacement solution and approach the market. Notably, no money was allocated to build a new app. A request for information was released to the market in February 2018. This process was followed by an invitation to supply which was issued in an open market approach on 26 March 2018.

In June 2018, an updated business case was established outlining the funding requirements necessary to develop and support a replacement Alert SA solution, user experience and user interface design, and research was undertaken in parallel with this process with the aim of compressing future development time frames. The research conducted also showed that there was a public need for such a high service and that the Alert SA brand was not damaged. The government has announced additional funding in the state budget of $5.2 million over four years, including $2.6 million in the 2018-19 budget for the delivery and operation of the new Alert SA website and mobile app.

Focus has been placed on delivering a robust replacement solution and ensuring that the state retains the intellectual property of the new solution to alleviate ongoing dependence on a single contracted supplier. The new Alert SA solution will be delivered in the 2019 calendar year once it has successfully performed against an extensive reliability and load testing regime; 170,000 downloads of the previous Alert SA app were recorded and it is anticipated that the new app will exceed this. It is also noted that the government is looking to recover some costs from the loss of the shutdown, should I say, or the scrapping of the original app, and that recovery equates to just over $1 million that we are trying to recover from that fiasco.

Mr ODENWALDER: This was $1 million for the recovery—

The CHAIR: Sorry, where are we in the budget?

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry, on the same line.

The CHAIR: Which is?

Mr ODENWALDER: Page 94—Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94, as the member for Heysen made perfectly clear.

The CHAIR: Page 97, to be kind.

Mr ODENWALDER: For the Alert SA replacement? Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94. How many invitations to supply were received? You said it was updated on 26 March. How many were received and when were they received?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will take that question on notice. I do not have that detail at hand.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it in the hundreds or is it one or two? You just do not know.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just said I would take that question on notice. I do not have the detail at hand.

Mr ODENWALDER: How were the figures of $2.6 million started up and then $866,000 going forward over the forward estimates arrived at? Was that based on the previous project?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think, as I outlined, there was a detailed business case put together and evaluated on the responses that were put forward.

Mr ODENWALDER: I apologise if you have already said this, but I understand from your public statements that a provider has been identified?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you tell the committee exactly when that decision was made?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No; I do not have the exact date, but I am happy to take that on notice as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. Who made that decision?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The process is that the evaluation panel made the assessment and then they gave that assessment to the chief executive of SAFECOM, who passed it on to me.

Mr ODENWALDER: Was the evaluation panel within SAFECOM?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, the evaluation panel was from within the organisation.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not expect you to have this information here, but can you advise the committee who was on that panel?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry?

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you provide the names of the people who were on that panel?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I can get that for you. I will take that on notice as I do not have those names with me.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand. Could this project not have been pushed along further? Bushfire season is approaching—when does bushfire season officially start? Gentlemen? Someone must know.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It actually slides along—

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I know it slides, but what is the trigger?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The October long weekend. To be more specific: there are nine bushfire management committees, so it starts in different locations at different times. They make the recommendation as to when it starts in each jurisdiction.

Mr ODENWALDER: But you just nominated the October long weekend as kind of a rough estimate?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is a bit like defining when a season starts. It starts here, but is it going to be hot on 1 December because that is when summer starts? No, it is not. In my mind, as a layperson, they normally think around the October long weekend.

Mr ODENWALDER: You are not a layperson; you are the Minister for Emergency Services.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Laypeople would operate to that, so we draw that common line. The technical answer is: all nine jurisdictions make that assessment and it comes from there.

Mr ODENWALDER: You were obviously aware that the invitations to supply had gone out and that this process was underway, and you are aware that bushfire season is approaching. Did you try to push that project along at any point between March and October? Did you personally involve yourself and say, 'This system needs to get going before we have a bushfire'?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I understand where your question is coming from. I think one thing we need to be really cautious of—as the member for Kaurna would know, it is easy to scrap an app and throw a million dollars out the window. That is really easy to do, but when you are building a brand new app, especially a very important app such as this, you want to make sure you get it right. So—

Mr ODENWALDER: But I assume there is a precedent for this type of app. It is not starting from scratch.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It actually is, because it was previously scrapped. It is not a rebuild, a relaunch or a reload; it is actually starting from new. I have been through the necessary process to get to this point. It is about community safety and we want to get it right, so we will go through that process. We do not want to rush it, and we do not want to get into a situation where it was rushed and had to be scrapped again. We know what happened there.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question was: at any point in the process, did you get involved and ask, 'Can this project be pushed along any faster?' or did you just say, 'Okay, we'll just let it go and let it drift along'?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I stress the point that this is the sort of thing you have to get right. You cannot rush this—

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate that. I am not saying 'rush it'; I am saying 'get it done'.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You cannot rush this. You must do it in the right order at the right time to make sure you deliver a reliable product. We know what happened with the old app and we do no want to have the same situation happen again. It is about making sure we get it right because it is about public safety.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. In relation to the million or so dollars you referred to earlier, regarding the legal risk put against the government by the failure of the old app, whereabouts does that figure pop up in the budget?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, to be completely fair it is for you to find the line item in the budget and to ask the question pertaining to that. That is the purpose of budget estimates—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, that is not true.

The CHAIR: It actually is true. I will allow you to rephrase—

Mr ODENWALDER: The minister mentioned a million-dollar figure which I do not think is in the budget, so I would like the minister to explain where it exists. If it exists that is fine, I stand corrected.

The CHAIR: Does the minister want to answer his question?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To clarify: it was written off as an expense and there is no contingent liability. We are trying to claw back the loss of—

Mr ODENWALDER: So it is not a cost to the budget?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It has been written off at that price, and there is no contingent liability. It is about trying to get that money back.

Mr PICTON: On the same budget line—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, which is?

Mr PICTON: Which is Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, and page 94 comes to mind. From what the minister was saying before—

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, I like it how you did go to get your budget papers but you have not opened them up. Let us try again for the sake of consistency.

Mr PICTON: Page 95.

The CHAIR: I think you mean 97, because—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, it is here on 95, New projects, Alert SA replacement—

The CHAIR: Well, the member for Kaurna is asking the question so he can follow the rules.

Mr PICTON: Page 95. The minister was saying, as has been widely reported, that there was an approach to market in February. He has now said, this new information to me, that, presumably after the election in March, there was a second approach to market. When did that approach to market complete?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify it, because I do not want to mislead the committee, I will just go over this so it is clear for everyone. During the period from December 2017 through to January 2018, the Alert SA website and app experienced a number of significant service outages, we know that. On 7 January 2018, the then minister for emergency services directed the decommissioning of Alert SA—you will remember that—and the website as it could no longer be utilised and promoted as a reliable information channel to the community during emergencies.

Following the decommissioning in January 2018 funding was approved to enable the SA Fire and Emergency Services Commission (SAFECOM) to develop a business case for a replacement Alert SA solution, and $108,000 was expended in engaging expert advice to assist in the development of the business case. In February 2018 SAFECOM was provided funding of half a million dollars to refine the business case, develop detailed specifications for the replacement solution, and approach the market.

A request for information was released to the market in February 2018. This process was followed by an invitation to supply, which was issued in an open market approach on 26 March 2018.

Mr PICTON: My question is: when did that complete, the invitation to supply?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised we do not have the date at hand, so I will take that on notice.

Mr PICTON: Okay, if you can take it on notice. On what date was a supplier selected?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have already indicated that I will supply that as a question on notice. I will take it on notice to get you the exact date as well.

Mr PICTON: Okay. Do you know roughly? Was it in the last month or was it three months ago or—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not want to mislead the house, so I will take it on notice. If I had a stab in the dark that could be misleading.

Mr PICTON: Who is the supplier?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised it is a local company, SRA Information Technology.

Mr PICTON: Have they delivered similar products in the past?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, I am informed they are a local South Australian company that has delivered significant ICT products both nationally and internationally.

Mr PICTON: Is what you have asked them and contracted them to do essentially the same as the previous app in terms of what consumers will see, that there will be an app and a website, or are there changes in terms of what the contract is under this product?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised that this company is going to keep the Alert SA brand and name. The research shows that it is still very strong, so that is great. It will have a slightly different look and feel—and we know that technology has advanced so I would imagine there will be some things that are different to the previous app—but deliver the service we require.

Mr PICTON: Is there a particular date by which they have to have delivered a product to you?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have the exact date. I do not have the contract in front of me, but I do stress the point, as I have made to the member for Elizabeth very firmly, that we want to get this right. Again, you know personally yourself what it is like if it is not right. You shut down the previous app. We do not want to do that again. We are working with this company. I am happy to take that on notice and check the contract and see if there is a definitive date. We are hoping for the next calendar year, as I pointed out, and we will want it sooner rather than later but we will not want to push the project to risk another failure like you experienced.

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget Measures Statement, MFS, page 49. I want to talk a little bit about emergency services in Mount Barker. I note the decision to establish a retained fire station in Mount Barker. Can you outline very briefly the reasons why you think there should be a retained fire station at Mount Barker? How was that decision made?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As the member would be aware, there is a large growing population in Mount Barker in the community there, and they need both residential fire protection and bushfire protection. In this budget, we have provided the MFS with additional funding from 2019-20 to implement a retained fire station model in Mount Barker in phase 1. The phase 1 transition is expected to take approximately six months to implement. It is proposed that the standard MFS retained firefighter process will be implemented, targeting to recruit as many personnel as possible from the ranks of the existing Mount Barker CFS brigade.

The MFS will utilise the existing CFS fire station and that money in the forward estimates, as you can see, is there for 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. As noted in that, it also includes $1.8 million for appliances. The MFS has been provided additional funding from 2018-19 for an engineer and safety officer in 2018-19 and 2019-20. I apologise—

Mr ODENWALDER: That was the aluminium cladding.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is the aluminium cladding, which is another commitment that we made. The retained firefighting service in Mount Barker has been very welcomed by the community. I know the local member is very excited and it is a growing population base.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am sure they are. You mentioned you are working on recruiting from the existing CFS. Is that right?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, the option is there for CFS firefighters.

Mr ODENWALDER: What sort of impact do you expect that to have then on the existing CFS? You say the nature of Mount Barker is that there is a growing residential area but also a significant bushfire risk. Have you made some assessment of the impact that developing a retained MFS station will have on the existing CFS volunteer force, considering that you are recruiting from that volunteer force?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have outlined the wonderful work that the volunteers do, in particular through the Adelaide Hills, as the member for Heysen would very much know. I was up there just the other week, speaking with a few of the locals in Mount Barker. One of the great things about that community is that they are very passionate about their community. I will defer and get the names of all the smaller CFS stations around, but I know there is Littlehampton, Nairne, Meadows, Hahndorf—I am putting the chief on the spot here to name them all and not leave anyone out.

Mr ODENWALDER: In alphabetical order, please.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: There are four, and I think there might be a fifth or even a sixth in that localised area, which does show the community spirit of that region and the understanding of what the community needs. I was so impressed that these little communities around the bigger community of Mount Barker have their CFS stations and that they are well supported. We will be working with the CFS. The CFS does a great job all the time of growing their volunteer base and keeping people engaged with the community. I see this as a really good opportunity to have both the CFS and the MFS in that community working together. They are a very passionate bunch. We are always looking for more CFS volunteers.

Mr ODENWALDER: I assume they overlap. I assume that CFS volunteers can also be retained MFS firefighters. Is that the case?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Presumably, you envision that there will be quite a lot of crossover in the workforce.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Has that happened in other places? Is that the situation in Gawler and places like that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes. Mount Gambier has a full-time crew and a retained crew as well, so it does happen in other jurisdictions.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, sorry, my question was about sharing between the CFS volunteer force and the MFS retained force. Does that happen a lot on the peri-urban fringes? Is that a standard model or is Mount Barker a special case?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: There are others around the state that have a similar model or different models, depending on the nuances of the localised area. I mentioned Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier, but Mount Barker will be one of the only ones that has this arrangement where they share the shed. We were up there the other day, and I have never seen a neater set-up in my life. I know the acting chief was suitably impressed—the boots were very well polished.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is good to know.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And the station was very—

Mr ODENWALDER: It is funny that, is it not? It is because you were visiting the station.

The CHAIR: I know that the member for Colton has been waiting very patiently. He has a question.

Mr COWDREY: I have a question that I think the member for Kaurna has a lot of interest in as well. Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 52. Can you provide an update in relation to the new drone capability of surf lifesaving clubs in South Australia?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for the question. This is another exciting election commitment. Prior to the election, the government made this commitment to provide unmanned aerial vehicle capability to surf lifesaving clubs in South Australia. A small working committee was subsequently formed by Surf Life Saving South Australia in consultation with Surf Life Saving New South Wales, who had recently undertaken a similar project with significant positive outcomes. Surf Life Saving South Australia subsequently provided recommendations to the government for the establishment of a UAV capability based on the New South Wales service, to be managed centrally through Surf Life Saving South Australia headquarters but to be available to all Surf Life Saving South Australia clubs.

The decision to manage the capability centrally was based on the technical nature of the equipment and significant considerations towards gaining and maintaining current competency as pilots. Currently, four UAVs have been acquired in preparation for the forthcoming season, with further aircraft to be acquired during this financial year. The first pilot training course has also been conducted, with eight pilots successfully completing the course. It is anticipated that further training courses will be conducted during this financial year to extend and maintain the capability and ensure availability to all clubs, commensurate with risk assessments made by Surf Life Saving South Australia.

The provision of UAV capability will enhance Surf Life Saving South Australia's ability to meet marine-related risk in a broad beach safety context, as well as complementing fixed-wing and rotary aerial shark surveillance capabilities. During the 2018-19 financial year, Surf Life Saving South Australia has been provided with a grant of $190,000 from the Community Emergency Services Fund to establish the capability, including the acquisition of aircraft and training of pilots. This is a very exciting project that will very much add to the safety on our beaches into the future.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to take the minister now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 97, talking about the State Emergency Information Call Centre. Firstly, I assume this is the State Control Centre—we are talking about the same thing, are we not? The terminology is the same?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: My apologies; can you provide that page number again?

Mr ODENWALDER: Page 97 of Volume 2. In description and objective—in fact, in the highlights, you say there has been enhanced State Emergency Information Call Centre capability. Can you outline what that is, given I cannot see anything in the budget relating to this?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; are you asking if it is—you changed your question. Was your question about if it is the headquarters or—

The CHAIR: I think the member for Elizabeth was just clarifying whether the SEICC is the same as—

Mr ODENWALDER: The same as the State Control Centre.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, it is not.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. Last year, on 17 January, the then opposition criticised the state government for its, 'Pathetic commitment to look at finding a new home for the State Control Centre, which serves the—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes?

The CHAIR: It is not for you to reflect on whether something is pathetic or not.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, this is not me—I beg your pardon—I am quoting from a Liberal press release.

The CHAIR: Well, then that is entirely in order, and continue.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given the Weatherill government's 'pathetic commitment' to finding a new home for South Australia's State Control Centre, can you detail what the current government has done in relation to that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Do you know who that quote was attributed to? It was a scathing quote about the previous government.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes: it was the member for Schubert, on 17 January.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The honourable Minister for Transport.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, indeed.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What I can tell you is—

Mr ODENWALDER: He was a good shadow minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What I can tell you is, successive independent and internal reviews have identified significant operational limitations of current headquarter facilities for SES, CFS and SAFECOM, located at 60 Waymouth Street, Adelaide. A market call seeking accommodation proposals from the private sector closed on 16 February, 2018. Twenty-one submissions were received, of which five were shortlisted in April 2018. This issue had been going on for more than a decade, and that is where the previous government left the situation. As I said, 21 submissions were received, of which five were shortlisted in April 2018.

The government has committed to progressing the initiative, as outlined in the budget measures paper. Final budget impacts across the forward estimates will be determined following commercial negotiations with shortlisted proponents. The Country Fire Service, State Emergency Service and SAFECOM have been in that building. The current lease term expires on 1 November, 2017, with a three year-by-year option negotiated to extend the lease.

The CFS State Coordination Centre and the SES State Control Centre operate from this site. Their functions are primarily associated with supporting command and control coordination and intelligence capabilities to manage large-scale emergencies and disasters. I am aware that the current leased accommodation is severely compromised in terms of building resilience, operational capability—

Mr ODENWALDER: We were aware of this last year, minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —access amenities, and parking for staff and volunteers.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is—

Mr ODENWALDER: Well—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is providing his answer and you are cutting into your own time by interrupting.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sure.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —and that successive independent and internal reviews have identified significant operational limitations, but, as I said, nothing had been done. The market call—

Mr ODENWALDER: You have had a shortlist now for five months and nothing has happened since then?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The market call requesting proposals for a private sector was sent out and closed on 16 February. The emergency services sector and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure are leading commercial negotiations with shortlisted proponents. An improved accommodation solution, when agreed and implemented, will enhance community safety through the provision of enhanced service delivery, increased operational performance—

Mr ODENWALDER: So when will that be?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —enhanced situational awareness, improved effectiveness and much more effective operation of administrative—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Standing order 271: this estimates committee is, so far as practicable, to follow procedures in a committee of the house of parliament. A question has been asked. The minister is in the course of answering the question and I ask you, Mr Chair, to direct the questioner to allow the minister to complete his answer.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Heysen, I uphold your—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of clarification: if we are following so closely the procedures of the House of Assembly, then the minister should be providing relevant information and not detouring on all sorts of irrelevant matters.

The CHAIR: Indeed, and if I could quote one of my favourite Speakers, Speaker Atkinson—

Mr ODENWALDER: You and me both, sir.

The CHAIR: —I believe the minister is very germane to his answer. I do uphold the member for Heysen's point of order.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to know—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, I just remind you once again, that essentially this is the committee's estimate. The more you choose to interrupt and the more you interject, the more the member for Heysen will make valid points of order and the more I will rule on them and the more time I will take up. Bearing in mind that we only have 10 minutes left in this session, we can continue having a debate about whether the minister is providing a fulsome answer or not, but ultimately that chews into your next question. I think the minister is entirely in line and I am sure he will conclude his answer shortly so that we can get on to the next question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. Absolutely, I will. Where I was going with my response was, what we are doing will resolve a longstanding known risk and vulnerability for the state. The previous government sat on their hands, and it is the Marshall Liberal government that is taking action with this matter. I think in your question the quote from the previous shadow minister was spot on.

Mr ODENWALDER: It was spot on. So what have you done since April? You said there were five shortlisted in April. What has happened since then?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I have outlined, we have progressed this matter. It is in the budget and we are moving forward, unlike what the previous government did.

Mr ODENWALDER: You have progressed the matter how? This is not the radio now. You have to give some detailed answers. You do not just go to the next thing.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I gave you an answer.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you have asked your question. The minister will now provide an answer.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have given an answer.

Mr ODENWALDER: What have you done since April?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We have progressed the matter. It is in the budget. We are moving forward with this project.

Mr ODENWALDER: What has happened, though? What have you done?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I have outlined, we are progressing this, as opposed to the previous government, which did nothing for 16 years. I appreciate your interest. What I can also maybe add is that detailed commercial negotiations with shortlisted proponents will be undertaken by DPTI. Finalisation and approval of a preferred proponent will also be achieved. That will be what is happening. The target is for 2018-19.

Mr ODENWALDER: That will happen. Why did it not happen in April or May or June?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You guys sat on your hands for 16 years—

Mr ODENWALDER: I did not.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —and you want us to do it in six months. It is quite phenomenal. We are progressing.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just asking you a question. There is no need to be defensive. I am asking you a question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We are progressing this project after years of neglect.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am just asking you a question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And I have answered the question.

Mr PICTON: Same budget line.

The CHAIR: Which is what, member for Kaurna? You should know by now.

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 64, in terms of the Country Fire Service. In terms of the control centre, when does the minister expect that he will have picked one of those five proponents that have been shortlisted since April?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I outlined just a second ago, but am happy to repeat for the member, commercial negotiations with shortlisted proponents will be undertaken by DPTI.

Mr PICTON: Yes. The question was when?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You will have to ask DPTI. They are working through that. When that has been decided, we will let you know.

Mr PICTON: So you do not have any interest in that as the Minister for Emergency Services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered your question.

Mr PICTON: Have you asked DPTI when that is likely to be?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered your question.

Mr PICTON: You do not know?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered your question.

Mr PICTON: Wow.

Mr ODENWALDER: I take the minister back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94, which goes to the objectives of SAFECOM. What reasons did Mr Jackman give you for requesting a part-time position, as opposed to a full-time position?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have given a number of responses on this and I do not want to be repeating myself, but if I am asked the same questions—

Mr ODENWALDER: No; that would be great.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I am asked the same question, I will have to give the same answer, which you would appreciate. Mr Jackman came to me and asked to do this role three days a week, making himself available 24 hours a day seven days a week but on that remuneration, and his package was altered accordingly. I stated that I went to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and asked her to have a look over the proposal to see if it would work. The advice came back that it could work and to give it a six months' trial, and that is what we did.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand that, so thank you for repeating that, but what reasons did Mr Jackman give you for that request?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He felt that he could do the job in that time frame.

Mr ODENWALDER: So he felt that he could do a full-time job adequately within three days.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That was what was put to me and what I put to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment.

Mr ODENWALDER: But what did Mr Jackman tell you?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just answered that.

Mr ODENWALDER: He told you that he could do his job, that he currently does, in three days, rather than five days.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes. As I pointed out, making himself available seven days a week but working—

Mr ODENWALDER: But remunerated only for three days, with the appropriate loadings, or whatever it is. What days then is he expected to be in the office?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is the flexible work arrangement that he is negotiating.

Mr ODENWALDER: Right, so any equivalent three days over any period. Do you think the job can be done adequately in that time frame? Do you think it is a part-time position; is that your view?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is a really good question and, do you know what, when I thought about that for a minute I thought, 'We should have a review,' and that is what we are doing.

Mr ODENWALDER: Right. What are the terms of reference for this review?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is being worked out, as I answered a little while ago now. That is being worked through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and I can give you—

Mr ODENWALDER: Have any of the other agencies—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —a little more information, if you like. Just as far as the review is concerned, a small team has been established by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, led by Christine Bierbaum, to undertake the review, and will work with the emergency service sector, including—as I have stressed—the volunteers' association and SAFECOM, to develop terms of reference and to identify appropriate governance arrangements, budget and time frames. The working group will be established to support the review, comprising the chief officers, chief executive of SAFECOM and senior officials from DPC, Department of Treasury and Finance and SA Police.

Mr ODENWALDER: When you told Mr Jackman that his decision had precipitated a review, did he express any concerns about that, about the review or the timing?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: He did not express any concerns to you at all.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. Have any of the other agencies or their relevant officers or CEs expressed any reservations about either the review or the timing of the review?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Reservations, no; questions, yes. They asked how long we thought it would go. They were probably—and I think I mentioned this before, and again, I apologise but when the question is the same I have to give the same answer—they thought it might have been the 95,000—

The CHAIR: Minister, to be fair the member for Playford he has not asked a single question all morning, which surprises me, as well. I am also disappointed.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We all are.

Mr BROWN: I am being eliminated by other people's questions, Chair.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. It is the elimination that I am responding to, Chair, thank you. The other agencies had questions, yes. I said there were questions because they were concerned that it might have been, as I have said previously, another $95,000 overarching, huge review. It is not that. It is an internal review being done through DPC that is just looking at the SAFECOM management structure.

Mr ODENWALDER: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that some officers came to you with some concerns and you allayed those concerns by saying that it would be a minimal review. Is that right?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, you did not hear me correctly, so I will repeat the answer again. I apologise, but if he does not hear I have to repeat it.

The CHAIR: Minister, please direct the answer through the Chair.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. If he does not hear I have to repeat the answers. No, they did not come with concerns, they came with questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: With questions.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, just clarifying how it was going to work.

Mr ODENWALDER: Who came to you with questions?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You asked me if any of the chiefs came to me with questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, which ones? Who came to you with questions?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have to try to think who it was. I am not going to have a stab. I would have to go away and take it on notice and have a think about it, because I cannot remember exactly.

Mr ODENWALDER: And whose decision was it to appoint Christine Bierbaum to lead this review?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That was through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr ODENWALDER: It was not your decision?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did you play any role in that decision?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I asked the department to do it and they assigned someone to do the job.

Mr PICTON: Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 94, the same line of questioning in terms of SAFECOM and the CEO. Were you concerned in terms of when you approved the six-month appointment part time at three days a week that that might lead to confusion, it might lead to times when there was not somebody in charge of the organisation, which were, I have to say on the record, reasons why I refused a similar request that was made to me when I was the minister for emergency services. I am happy to put that on the record.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, it is not relevant what you did in a previous administration. We are here to look at the budget line items; the minister can answer that broad question accordingly.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I was not concerned. Again, I spoke with the head of the public sector, the commissioner, and took her advice. I believe very strongly in the capabilities of the three agencies as well. I think the people running those agencies do an outstanding job. As you know, SAFECOM is not an operational arm. The MFS do their job, and a wonderful job; the SES do their job, and a wonderful job; and the CFS do their job, and a wonderful job–more specifically, the CFS and SES, with the volunteers they have. They are truly great people and great South Australians and go relatively unrecognised, I think, in our community, which is something I am working on to make sure that they do get that recognition they deserve. They do an outstanding job.

So no, I was not concerned. I took the advice and, again, I stress the point that SAFECOM is not an operational arm in that the agencies do their work, and with the people in charge I think they do a very good job.

The CHAIR: I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio SAFECOM, Emergency Services Levy Fund, Country Fire Service, SA Metropolitan Fire Service, State Emergency Service, and the estimate of payments for administered items for the Department of Treasury and Finance completed. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet and administered items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet will remain adjourned until later today.

Sitting suspended from 10:32 to 10:46.

Membership:

Mr Malinauskas substituted for Mr Picton.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

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

Mr J. Down, Inspector, Staff Officer—Commissioner, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, everyone. We open up the proposed payments for the portfolio of SAPOL. We of course have the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 4. Minister, please introduce your new advisers and make an opening statement, if you so desire.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I would like to introduce, on my very far left, Mr Ian Hartmann, Manager, Financial Management, SAPOL. Mr Stephen Johinke, Director, Business Services, SAPOL is to my immediate left. To my right is the Commissioner of Police, Mr Grant Stevens, and behind is James Down, Inspector, Staff Officer—Commissioner, SAPOL.

During my short time as minister, I have been nothing but impressed by the commitment and hard work of all members of SAPOL who I have come into contact with. From the Police Academy to Hindley Street, Port Augusta and Mount Gambier, I have been fortunate to experience firsthand just some of the challenges and situations faced by the force every day. I look forward to meeting many more members over the coming months. One thing is clear: the importance of visible front-line policing has never been greater.

The Marshall government has immediately got to work to address our election commitments, including the appointment of the Hon. Kevin Duggan AM QC to conduct a review of police work, an independent audit of traffic cameras, establishment of a counterterrorism action plan, development of a hoon driving hotline capability for the public to report traffic behaviour and offending, funding for a trial of light armoured vests and, in line with community concern, changes to police station opening hours at Henley Beach, Norwood and Glenelg.

One thing is absolutely certain: no changes or decisions made by the new government will have any impacts on front-line policing. We are committed to ensuring that our police force is equipped with the experience, the resources and the tools they need for policing in the 21^st century. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the important work of the Police Association, in particular the president, Mark Carroll, and the secretary, Bernadette Zimmermann, and acknowledge the work they do for their members.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. The member for Elizabeth may have an opening statement or a question.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have a brief opening statement. I concur with the minister, of course. I put on the record my extreme admiration for SAPOL as an organisation. I think it is respected across the country. I am particularly proud to have been part of a government which for 16 years invested so heavily in SAPOL, in its resources and its people. I have to say that; I have a former police minister sitting next to me. On that note, I will get straight into questions. Minister, I will go straight to the workforce, referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13. Can you tell me on latest figures how many sworn police officer FTEs there are currently employed? I thought I would start with an easy one, minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I can give you numbers on just about everything here, so I will drill down to that one. For 30 June, the projection is 4,673.2 FTEs. That is the total full-time employee count.

Mr ODENWALDER: As at when?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Estimated result 30 June. I am informed as well that as at 30 June 2018 SAPOL had 5,903.7 active FTEs, representing 4,651.8 FTE active police, sworn or community constables; and 193 cadets at the Police Academy who graduate in 2018-19.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That sounds about right. Just to clarify—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, you have a question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sorry. Thank you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: It comes through the Chair, as you should know. Please identify what page and budget line you are referring to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am talking on the same budget line that was just mentioned by the member for Elizabeth.

The CHAIR: Good. If you had been following how we do things in here, every new questioner has to go back to where we started from.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I have noted in proceedings that the format that has been applied by you, Mr Chair, is somewhat different than in committee A.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, member for Croydon?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes. For the sake of clarity, and putting aside the—

The CHAIR: Sorry, the budget line item?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same one that was mentioned.

The CHAIR: Which is?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13. In regard to the numbers, putting aside the number of full-time employees or FTEs from SAPOL and just focusing on active sworn police, was I right that you said 4,658 active sworn officers, and that is including community constables, plus 93 cadets?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, sorry. I will go again just to be clear: 4,651.8 FTE active police, sworn or community constables, so both of those.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And 193 cadets at the Police Academy who graduate in 2018-19.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: When do those cadets graduate?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The 193 cadets are staggered over the year, but a proportion of those will go towards the 4,713 who will graduate in January. Good to see you here, by the way; I was expecting to see Katrine.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order—

The CHAIR: Let's just get on with the questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sure. I hope you will hold the minister to the same standard you hold the rest of us, sir.

The CHAIR: I hold everyone to the same standard—

Mr ODENWALDER: Good, I hope so. Over the course of the afternoon or the morning, I want to get a clear idea of exactly who these people are and where they work. Can you give me the community constable number again?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think it was 193, but I am just guessing—sorry, that was the number of cadets. I will get the community constable number for you; I should not guess, and I apologise. I will wait to get the exact figure. When you say you want to know all about them, are we talking names? Birthdays? Where are we going here?

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to know how many there are.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You said you wanted to know everything about them, so I am just checking.

The CHAIR: Minister—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; I am waiting for the answer, Chair.

The CHAIR: —it is not appropriate to provoke the member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not feel provoked, sir; your protection is not needed. I want to know how many there are and where they are stationed.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The number of FTEs at 30 June 2018—I am advised there are 35.47 community constables. You would like to know where they are placed and stationed?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Actually, that is probably not true: it cannot be 35.47 community constables; it would have to be 35.47 FTEs. I will just get that other information for you as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: While you are going through that workforce, if you could get the number of police security services personnel as well.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As we track them all down, I can tell you there are 10 positions on the APY lands, two at the Maralinga Tjarutja lands at Yalata—so that is 12 positions—and the remainder would be in the metropolitan and local service areas. Would you like an exact location?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, metro is fine. The number of police security officers, if you can? Just to be clear, they are not counted in the sworn number?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No; that is correct. I am advised that at 30 June, there are 125.4 active.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13 again. How many active sworn police officers left the force in the 2017-18 financial year?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised the number was 188 sworn in 2017-18.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So 188 active sworn police retired or, for whatever reason, left the police force?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just sworn, yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So a component of those people would have been non-active who have since formally left?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you have a projected number for what the equivalent would be for this financial year?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised that the budget is for about 160 separations.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same budget line, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13. I understand that the target for the number of active sworn FTEs under 313 has largely been realised, that the ultimate number—give or take a handful of course—is 4,713 active sworn FTEs. Is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised yes, but that does include seven cyber positions, positions that were released to get cyber experts in, which was agreed with PASA. That was to bring expertise into the operation that would not otherwise have been there. Also, as I think I said before, the January graduation rounds out that 4,713 when those graduates come through.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Excellent. In my reading of the particular budget item, the new budget provides—and I think it is consistent with the public remarks that have been made by you, minister—for that active sworn FTE figure to be maintained throughout the life of the budget. In other words, the savings measures in the budget, the workforce has been excluded from that, that more or less the funding for the 4,713 or thereabouts has been maintained throughout the budget.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes; the sworn workforce, the 4,713, has been quarantined, it is a front-line service, obviously. So yes that is there and protected, if you like, as it has been with other emergency services. For SAPOL that 4,713 figure is guaranteed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same budget item, and in regard to the cadet courses, I note that the cadet course has been delayed, which provides for a saving. What are the implications of that regarding the number of police? In other words, if the cadet course is delayed and attrition continues at the rate that has occurred and that is largely forecast to occur, what will that do to the sanctity of that 4,713 number?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am happy for the commissioner to explain the time line on this.

Cmmr STEVENS: The approach that has been accepted is that 4,713 is a target for 30 June each year, so the cadet courses are phased to ensure that we have a full-time active sworn headcount of 4,713 on 30 June.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That has largely been realised for 30 June 2018. In light of the minister's reference to the existing cadets, those who are in the system now, is that likely to be the case for 30 June 2019?

Cmmr STEVENS: Can you—

The CHAIR: Sorry, commissioner. Minister and member, all questions are to come through me and through the minister. If the minister would be happy for the commissioner to—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, through you, Chair, the—

The CHAIR: The question can stand, but it is up to the minister. If he would like the commissioner to answer then he needs to indicate, as per previous practice in this committee.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Can you repeat the question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: As the commissioner has answered, the 4,713 is taken to be met looking at the 30 June figure. Is it the case that 4,713 or thereabouts, give or take the cyber security numbers you referred to, was realised on 30 June 2018 and that you forecast that will be realised on 30 June 2019?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How about 2020-21?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am happy for the commissioner to respond.

Cmmr STEVENS: We program our recruit courses to meet that target of 4,713 each financial year. With the cadets we have in the academy, as the minister has indicated, a proportion of those goes toward fulfilling the 4,713 commitment at the end of January. The other cadets who are in there are scheduled to graduate in accordance with our budget to meet that 4,713 target and that is the way we program recruit training in 2021 as well.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Through you, Chair. Minister, will the saving that is occurring in regard to the cadet course result in there being periods throughout the financial year where the number of active sworn police will fall below the 4,713 number?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So your saving will result in there being less police during a period of the financial year?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised that the 4,713, as has been in the past and as it is going forward, is to be at that point at 30 June, as you have pointed out, give or take the cyber crime and whatever else. Throughout the course of the year, there will be fluctuations to that with people retiring or stepping away and new cadets coming on board. So that fluctuates through the course of the year, with a commitment to hit that number at 30 June.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Through you chair: yes, minister, that is a given because clearly you are not in control of when people decide to retire, but the saving associated—which I believe is in the order of $1.1 million according to the budget paper—with the cadet course and the timing will necessarily mean that there are less police. Albeit that the 30 June target is met, during the course of the year there will be less police than would otherwise be the case if that saving was not the case.

Mr ODENWALDER: And, indeed, fewer police as we approach 30 June.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am advised, and just to be clear—I think I said this in my last answer but I may not have been clear enough so I apologise if that was the case—the financial structure of the recruitment process has not been impacted, so that recruitment process as it has been in the past will continue into the future. As you rightly pointed out, you cannot control when people retire or step away or whatever might happen. As the graduates come on through that process the funding is there, and there is no savings impact that will affect that funding to make sure that at the end of the year we will be at 4,713.

I stress again that fluctuations throughout the course of the year can take place but to have 4,713 on any given day is not really possible. The agreement is to have 4,713 at 30 June, and the budget and the funding is there to ensure that we get to that point, and there are fluctuations along the way.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Chairman, I will refer to a different budget line to provide an additional level of clarity in regard to my question: Budget Paper 5, Part 2, page 136. Minister, I understand and in no way question the veracity of the budget in order to be able to realise the 4,713 number at or on 30 June or thereabouts.

To be fair, I also appreciate that 4,713 is a rather precise number. Clearly, there will be some variation at either side, but the size of that variation, or the amount that 4,713 has departed from, is very much informed by the way that cadet training courses are undertaken, the time in which they are undertaken and the volume in which people are going through.

I want to understand the implications of the $1.1 million that is saved across 2018-19 and 2019-20. I do not take away the realisation of the 4,713 on 30 June. I just want to understand what the implication of that $1.1 million saving is.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: From what I am advised, it is again the issue that we have talked about; that is, that the flow of cadets compared to the number of people who are retiring is going to fluctuate, it is going to vary. However, the commitment as at 30 June is that we will have 4,713.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We have established that, but the number of cadets does not fluctuate because of the number of people retiring. The number of people retiring fluctuates because of the individual decisions that those officers make around the timing of their retirement. What is being asked here is about the flow of cadets.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Whilst they are being delayed slightly for their course, the cadets will still graduate in time to meet the 4,713 target.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On 30 June?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes. The target will still be met.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay. So what is being delayed?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just the commencement of some of the programs.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the delay in the commencement of the program means that they still graduate, only later?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: In time to meet the 4,713.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify: SAPOL's budget includes $1.1 million savings over two years to be achieved by revising the timing of the December 2018 intake of 22 cadets to be six months later, commencing in June 2019—and they will still graduate in time. In fact—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Had it not been for that delay, would those cadets have commenced earlier?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify, member for Croydon: the strategy is very similar to the strategy that I think your government put in place, where you moved the earlier cadet intake to later in the financial year. It is pointed out that the same strategy of 30 per cent of junior cadet intakes was employed, I think, when you may have been minister. I am not 100 per cent sure, but that is what the previous government did as well. So it was just moving the intake—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Chairman, I am seeking an answer to a pretty specific question, namely, the delay in the commencement of the cadet course that the minister referred to. Presumably, had it not been for that delay, those cadets would be concluding their course earlier and becoming active, sworn FTEs earlier than would otherwise be the case.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The argument is: yes, with the ebbs and flows.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We have made it really clear that at no time are we at 4,713 right the way through. The commitment is to have 4,713. So that is what we will be meeting and, as you did in previous budgets, it is the same effect here to move that back so that we still meet the 4,713.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Through you, Chair, I think the minister needs some clarity on this because the previous budget decisions were made to substantially increase the financial budget allocation to SAPOL in order to be able to grow the police force by an extra 313 active sworn FTEs—so it was a growth. A timing of the growth is one thing, but we are not talking about growth. You are not forecasting, through this budget, to grow the size of the police force. What you are seeking to do is maintain the size of the police force on 30 June each year, which is fine and I am not in any way critical of that. What I am asking about is what happens during the course of the financial year because, just to give some context—

The CHAIR: I appreciate, member for Croydon, that you do have some background experience in this, but, of course, it is to ask the minister—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am asking a question. Are there going to be fewer—

The CHAIR: —but with a lot of context. Ask the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will ask a very clear question: are there going to be fewer police officers enrolled in SAPOL, say, for instance on—pick a date—1 May each year, as a result of the delayed intake?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I understand your question and there is a relativity to that—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What is the answer?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; if I could finish—there is a relativity to that in that we talked before about when people will retire and when people step down—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not talking about that: I am talking about recruitment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; if I can finish please, member for Croydon?

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, can I just remind the committee that this is not an opportunity for debate. This is not the committee stage of the second reading of a bill. It is a chance for the members of the committee to ask questions and the minister—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We understand the rules. We are just asking questions and just looking for answers.

The CHAIR: I do not know if you do. Member for Croydon, I know this is your first estimates participating as a member of the House of Assembly. The minister is providing an answer. He will provide the answer and you will be able to ask subsequent questions. I am being very generous.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I get your question and you are saying, 'On this given date, what will the number be, depending on the graduates'—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, that is not my question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Well, please give your question again, then.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I accept that, on the basis of the answers you have given—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; what is your question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am getting there—on 30 June each year the 4,713 number will be realised.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not asking what the number will be on 1 June, I am asking if the number on 1 June, for instance, will be fewer as a result of the delay that you referred to in the cadet course?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The point of the matter is, potentially, yes—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry; if I can finish—but if the 160 that retire retire after 1 June but before 30 June, then it will be no. As you said, you cannot predict when those 160 people forecast to retire are going to retire. If they retire after that date, well, no, it probably will not be. If they retire before that date, potentially it could be. The commitment, as we know, is 4,713 on 30 June. That is what we are committed to.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do no accept that last part, but in regard to—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We are committed to 4,713 on 30 June.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is—

The CHAIR: It is completely irrelevant what anyone accepts or does not accept. The minister provided an answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I appreciate the answer. It has provided clarity that the $1.1 million saving will necessarily result in police starting or being delayed than what would otherwise be the case, which means we are at risk of 4,713—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, are you are asking another question or making a statement? The member for Colton has been waiting very patiently for over half an hour to ask a question. Member for Colton.

Mr COWDREY: Thank you for your timely attention. My question is with regard to Budget Paper 5, Budget Measures Statement, page 137. Minister, can you provide some more information about the development of rapid response capabilities for SAPOL?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for Colton for his interest. I am happy to provide the committee with this update. In line with the Marshall government's election commitments, SAPOL is in the process of developing a model to significantly enhance the ability of police to respond rapidly to high risk incidents, including terrorist incidents. The key driver for this initiative is the nationally consistent security posture mandated by the federal government and is based on the current advice from Australian security agencies.

Terrorist organisations continue to encourage and incite attacks on defence and police personnel. However, the most likely civilian targets for a terrorist attack within Australia are crowded places, passenger transport facilities and critical infrastructure. The nature of attacks and attack planning, both in Australia and in Europe, indicate that people are currently more likely to be targeted than built infrastructure. Locations are more likely to include significant sporting events, public transport, major shopping precincts and symbolic or cultural sites.

The security risk posed by an active armed offender (AAO) event is prevalent in the community's collective consciousness as a result of interstate attacks and the frequency of media reporting of international AAO events in jurisdictions that share our social values. In the current threat context, there is a business requirement for an agile protective response capability focusing on vulnerable areas with a high risk profile. The benefits of this initiative include a layered approach to public safety by providing a scalable security posture that is not impacted by the availability of the state's police tactical groups to resolve high risk domestic and terrorist incidents.

On Sunday 26 August 2018, the state government announced that SAPOL will be able to use up to 48 sworn positions to create new teams in a middle tier between general duties and highly specialised STAR Group officers. This initiative will bring South Australia into line with other states that have already developed such a capability in response to the changed CT environment within Australia, through enhanced support of front-line police to safely manage major events and the capability to rapidly respond to any terror or high risk incidents in South Australia.

The allocation of dedicated trained and equipped resources and the application of risk treatment strategies for AAO have significant broad benefits for front-line policing beyond effective responses to AAO incidents. The benefits of this include enhanced organisational reputation, image and community confidence; scalable security presence in crowded places at times of actual or perceived increased risk without impacting a high risk response capability; overt scalable security posture for corporately significant deployments to planned events; front-line tactical support, increased tactical options available to front-line policing response; members trained and equipped in method of entry capability for emergency entry to premises and for supporting rapid entry to premises for investigations units; and offender control/management for preplanned operations.

Work has commenced and a discussion paper has been developed to help identify the most appropriate model and structures, with a view towards implementation in 2019-20.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. The member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have a couple of quick questions on that same line, Budget Measures Statement, page 137. With regard to the counterterrorism rapid response—and I think I am on the record as saying this may well be a perfectly reasonable idea—do you envision that members of this group will also conduct normal patrol work and be attached to districts, or would they be a fully stand-alone team?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am happy for the commissioner to answer this one.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister. The intention at this point is not entirely clear. We have indicated that we would require six months to fully scope out the way in which this rapid response capability is going to be established. The options are that they are attached to districts in the metropolitan area or that they are connected to a currently stand-alone area, such as our state tactical response team or our highly specialised STAR Group. The intention is that they will remain mobile and available to respond to specific types of incidents, so their full engagement in general patrol duties is not likely to be one of the outcomes of our concept development. The intention is that they will remain free and available to respond.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I refer to the same item, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Page 137, thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Whose idea was the rapid response team, minister?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is something that we worked on consultatively between myself as the minister and the commissioner.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I assume that you consulted with him on it but whose idea was it?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just answered that question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Can you repeat the answer; I did not hear?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is something that we worked on consultatively between myself and the commissioner.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the police commissioner ask you for the rapid response team to be developed?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, the commissioner put that forward as part of our process, and it was a great idea, and we have supported that idea.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the police commissioner asked for the rapid response team.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner is in charge of operations, as you are well and truly aware.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is his call and that is what he put.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Was it the police commissioner's idea to develop the rapid response team?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner is in charge of operations, as I have said a hundred times over.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He put that idea on the table in discussions that we have fairly regularly.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the rapid response team then have nothing to do with an election commitment?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. The rapid response was not an election commitment, no.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just in the answer you gave to the member for Colton, you said that this was as a result of—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, no. As a result of our election commitment that has freed up the staff to be free to be a part of the rapid response. There is a second part, as the commissioner points out, which I will go to in a second. What I said in response to the member for Colton was that our election commitment freed up the staff who will be able to be deployed into the rapid response—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What election commitment was?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: By opening the police station opening hours.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How did that free up police—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, if you let me finish—what that has done there is—you have probably seen in the media and would be aware that we are putting civilians into police stations along with sworn police, so that frees up 26 police officers, along with the prosecutors as well, and they go into a quantum of people who will be available for this rapid response capability, so that was because of our election commitment. Remodelling the police stations with that civilianisation gives us that quantum of around 45 people to go into the rapid response capability. That was the election commitment that freed up those people with the solution that came there, and that gave us the quantum for the rapid response.

The other part to the election commitment that dovetails into this is the doubling of police firearms training which can go specifically towards this rapid response team. Those numbers again, just to clarify: 26 sworn police officers coming out of metro stations and 22 civilianised solicitors going in, so that gives us 48 sworn to go into that capability.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: With the police station hours—obviously you will correct me if I am wrong—the election commitment was to extend the operating hours of a few police stations. I think there were three: Glenelg, Henley Beach and Norwood. In delivering that commitment, did you go beyond that and not just facilitate the civilians working in those extended hours but also working throughout the other hours that were otherwise opening, that it freed up—I have not articulated that question very well, sorry.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If you go again, that is alright.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Prior to the police stations opening up with the additional hours, as per your election commitment—those police stations were staffed by police presumably—you extended the hours. Extending the hours when they were closed would not have freed up police resources, you would have just taken an additional civilian input. I want to understand how extending the hours freed up police.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think I understand your question. I am just going to make sure that am not going down the wrong path.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Maybe I will put it another way to make it a bit clearer: neither of us believe in magic puddings, right? So extending police station opening hours does not create more police. So how did you make that work?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I apologise, you have not missed the point I made. The question was a bit long-winded; maybe I did not explain myself clearly enough, too, so I will try to clarify—sing out if my answer is like your question. What we have done with the model is gone back to the way it was previously. Under your government it was sworn police officers in every police station, which chewed up a lot of sworn officers. We have gone in and put civilian workers, administrators, back in to do the administrative work in police stations.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Not just in the extended hours but also the other hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: In the other stations as well, sorry.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In all the stations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: In all the metro stations, yes. So that is where that 26 came from. Twenty-six sworn metro officers come out to go into the Rapid Response Unit, along with 22 solicitors and 42 administrative workers or civilians going into the police stations. So we have administrators doing administrative work. There will still be police officers present—we have made this abundantly clear—to supervise. Just to clarify: this is nothing new; I have put all this on the table before. That was the strategy and that is how it plays out.

It gives us those two capabilities: we meet the commitment, open those police station hours and revert back to a model which, I think, was around, potentially, when you were minister—prior to 313 I am informed. That is when that model was in place. It worked wonderfully well. We are going back to that model and it is allowing us to have that capability that I talked about, the 48 sworn for the rapid response.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That makes sense—you have answered the question, thank you. Just to be crystal clear, there will be police officers working at police stations during the extended opening hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many police officers versus civilian staff will be in those extended hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Would you like me to verbalise the numbers for you?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, sure—just in the extended hours I am talking about.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just the three stations are you talking about?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: For instance, yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: For Norwood, for example, in the extended hours they will have one sergeant, four from other ranks and five ASO staff, so a total of 10. Henley Beach will have—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But how many active sworn SAPOL officers will there be versus civilian staff?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I was just saying: one sergeant, four from other ranks—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So five officers?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes. Henley Beach will be the same, and Glenelg will be three. That is across all hours of service delivery and not just the extended hours. That is the staff there to accommodate the service delivery across the roster for when that station is open.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So during the extended hours at Henley Beach, for instance, since the member for Colton probably takes an interest in this, at 10 o'clock at night, how many SAPOL officers will be on site?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do not have a breakdown of how many will be there at that time, but they are there for supervision purposes. I am happy to take it on notice and get an hourly breakdown for you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Whose decision was it to put those police officers in those locations during those extended hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The commissioner allocates police resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It was the police commissioner's decision?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He allocates police resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the police commissioner decided to put active sworn SAPOL officers on those sites during those extended hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To extend the hours and have the ASO2 people and/or civilians there, we have to have police officers there overseeing, so yes, they will.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So whose decision was that?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner allocates resources to this. That is his role, his responsibility, and what that has done is, when he looks at the overall force, give him that capability now—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think you have answered the question, so thank you. It was the police commissioner's decision.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I can just finish—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —it gives him that capability now to have those numbers for the rapid response team. So when you look at the overarching capability of the force, it is an expanded capability.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Did the police commissioner ever advise you against the extended police station opening hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, the police commissioner allocates police resources. It does not have anything to do with me.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the extension of the police station opening hours has nothing to do with the election commitment or you or the Premier or the member for Colton?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, what I said was—I think I have answered this question but I will say it one more time—the police commissioner allocates police resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Sure, but the allocation of police resources to extend the opening hours, you are saying, has nothing to do with you?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, the police commissioner allocates police resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, so it was the police commissioner's idea to extend the police station opening hours?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner allocates resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, I know.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I cannot be any clearer. I have said it four times.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Maybe I will add another level. I can comfortably state here on the record that it was the police commissioner's decision to close those stations for those extended hours. I am trying to understand why the police commissioner decided to now open those stations with those SAPOL officers. So the police commissioner decided to close those stations. Now he has made a decision to allocate staff into those stations. I want to understand why.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I have allowed a very open and free debate on this issue all morning which is—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is not a debate. I was asking questions.

The CHAIR: A discussion. I am speaking, member for Croydon. Of course, as you know, the police commissioner is not appearing before this committee or is not answerable to the committee.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, I am asking the minister.

The CHAIR: The minister is and of course the minister is responsible for the fulfilment of the budget as opened in this session. These are very broad statements and concepts and I think the minister can choose to answer these questions how he likes, but it is not the police commissioner who is here to provide answers or his decisions or reasons in front of the committee: it is the minister and, of course, that through the budget.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: All my questions are to the minister.

The CHAIR: I appreciate that. I am just reminding the committee of its roles and obligations. Minister.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you. I think I have been really clear. I will just make one last statement on this. As you know, it was a government decision to extend the police station opening hours. We funded the police commissioner—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, just—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —sorry, if I can finish—we funded the commissioner to free up police to meet the resources that he needs to deliver what he needs to deliver.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What does he need to deliver?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He needs to deliver the overall police force—that is what he needs to do.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who is in charge of police stations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner. I will say it one more time and then I am done.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Are police stations considered to be a matter of police operations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner is in charge of police operations. For the eighth time—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I know that, but I am confused. Are police stations considered a part of police operations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner allocates police resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I know that. I am not asking about that. I am asking about police stations. Are police stations a matter of police operations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay, so they are not a matter of government responsibility. They are not a matter of government policy. They are a matter of police operations.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will be abundantly clear.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: See, just before—and we can check Hansard. Just before, you said—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —police stations—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, when I have the call, you will stop speaking. Period.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I—

The CHAIR: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I know he needs your protection—

The CHAIR: No, I am not giving you any protection whatsoever. All I am meaning is you asked the question, the minister is answering it. Let him finish answering it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But you are interrupting.

The CHAIR: The member for Narungga has a question.

Mr ELLIS: Thank you very much, Chair.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He was answering the question!

The CHAIR: The member for Narungga has a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is a disgrace. You are a disgrace, Mr Chairman. We are trying to ask questions during this estimates process.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I will ask you to withdraw that statement. I will give you an opportunity to withdraw that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I withdraw.

The CHAIR: Member for Narungga.

Mr ELLIS: I will take the minister to Budget Paper 5, in the budget measures, page 135, and ask that the minister explain to this committee the status of the government's election commitment with regard to light armoured vests for front-line police.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for his interest in this area and I am pleased to provide an update to the committee. As the member has noted, the Marshall government made a pre-election commitment for a trial of 100 light armoured vests. If successful, this will lead to a rollout of 1,900 vests in total. The reference to light armoured vests is synonymous with the reference to stab proof vests used by the Police Association in advocating for increased protection for their members.

There are numerous types of multipurpose vests commercially available. Other Australian policing jurisdictions, including New South Wales, have recently introduced such vests after conducting testing and procurement processes. Initially, some suggestion was made that SAPOL could piggyback off of the New South Wales process in order to swiftly expedite the acquisition process. This has since been discounted as a viable option. There are concerns that this would not meet procurement rules and that the New South Wales vest might not prove to be the best option for SAPOL.

The state government's commitment to the initiation of a trial within the first 100 days in office has been met. Work commenced in April 2018 and was formalised in May with the establishment of a working party inclusive of procurement and financial experts, together with subject matter experts inclusive of appropriate gender representation. There are significant complexities which need to be addressed, and the concept of trialling and supplying the new vests is not as simple as first anticipated. It is necessary to establish an appropriate level of ballistic protection for the proposed trial vests.

There are currently over 4,000 SAPOL officers who are operational in the sense that they complete an annual incident management and operational safety training course. Of these, between 2,000 and 2,500 are engaged in front-line uniform operational duties. The next step is the finalisation of an audit of the existing tote vests and completion of recommendations to the commissioner for approval of minimum specifications and standards for the proposed vests. This will then enable the completion of a clear and unambiguous business model. The specific work locations at which the 100 trial vests will be assigned and tested has already been determined by the deputy commissioner.

The trial will also be used to inform a final decision on mandatory wearing of the new vests, given the fundamental proposition that any personal protective equipment provided by the employer should be worn in the course of employment; $156,000 has been provided in 2018-19 to fund the trial of the 100 vests.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Does the member for Playford have any questions?

Mr BROWN: Not at this stage.

The CHAIR: The member for Elizabeth has a question.

Mr ODENWALDER: You are keeping your powder dry. On the same budget line or Budget Measures Statement, page 139, about light armoured vests, you said that the immediate rollout of vests, and I am paraphrasing, was discounted as a viable option. Who discounted it? By whom? Where did that advice come from?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The commissioner.

Mr ODENWALDER: The commissioner? Okay. I did not quite understand what you said about the allocation of the 100 vests that are funded by this trial. Where will that be?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We are in the process of rolling those out. I think what I said, just for the record, is that the specific work locations at which the 100 trial vests will be assigned and tested has already been determined by the deputy commissioner. That is what the deputy commissioner has done in this process.

Just to clarify: the deputy commissioner has found a range of locations across the state, and this has been talked about a lot with these vests. As you can understand and appreciate, South Australia is a big state; what may be needed at Coober Pedy might be different to Mount Gambier or Murray Bridge—as with, I am informed, water operations and mounted operations. It is very important to get the right vest for the right operation, and there is such a diverse climate and range. That is being explored as we speak.

Mr ODENWALDER: Forgive me if I am not reading the budget papers as well as I should, but there is $4 million allocated for the trial over four years? Is that right?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What page are you on?

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget measures, page 139. No, I am wrong about that; I beg your pardon. My question is: if $156,000 is provided for a trial in 2018-19, why is there no budget allocation for a rollout should that occur? Presumably, from what you have said, the trial will result in a rollout of some sort of vest for every front-line officer. Is that right? Will the end result be that every front-line officer will have a vest?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To be clear, what we have said, and what I said in my last answer, is that it is hard to budget for something when you do not know what you will be needing. That is what is being explored as we speak: determining what is needed and what is required. The funding will then come from there. I can go through my last answer again, if you would like, to just outline—

Mr ODENWALDER: No. So you do not accept the fundamental proposition that every front-line police officer should have a vest? That is not your starting point?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify—I may be repeating myself, and I apologise, but the question is being asked again—there are over 4,000 operational SAPOL officers in the sense that they complete the annual incident management and operational safety training course. Of these, over 2,000—and perhaps as many as 2,500—are arguably engaged in front-line uniform operation duties which would reasonably require adequate protection against spontaneous attack with ballistic or bladed weapons.

The required number of new vests to be issued or supplied can only be realistically determined once the proposed trial has been completed and accurate costings have been obtained from prospective suppliers. Any calculation of numbers will need to take into account any view or submission provided by the Police Association and/or the workforce during consultation in setting the criteria for personal issue of MPLBVs—how is that for an acronym. The Police Association has not yet been consulted, but it is to be expected that their position will favour a broader policy for distribution of the new vest. That is being worked through as we speak.

Mr ODENWALDER: Just one more question: the Police Association has not been consulted?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Not in relation to the type of vests. I again apologise if I am repeating myself, but just to be abundantly clear, I think I have outlined the process we are going through—that is, to find what is required.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I am just trying to clarify what you said.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As we are going through and looking at different vests—well, the commissioner is; I am not involved in that, obviously—at the right point, the Police Association will be involved. It is just a matter of drilling down to what vests are right, and that is what the commissioner and the team are doing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Going back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, sub-program 1. I refer to police station opening hours. Is there any potential for police station hours or locations to vary into the future?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, could you repeat that?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is there any potential for police station locations or hours to vary into the future?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Not as far as I am aware.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Whose decision is it? Who decides the hours and locations of police stations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Not the government?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. To clarify and go back a bit: you started on a line that you were saying I had talked about, and I did not think I had. I am happy to check Hansard. Just to clarify our election commitment for police station opening hours: as a government, we funded civilian staff to go into police stations, which freed up police for the police commissioner to assign as he sees fit.

While I do not mean to overdo it, I again stress the point that the police commissioner allocates police resources. Our funding commitment was there for the 42 civilian staff to go into the police stations, which I outlined before, thereby freeing up police for the police commissioner.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the police commissioner determines the location and hours of police stations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have been advised there have been previous situations where the police commissioner has been advised to build police stations in certain locations. That has happened in the past.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Who decided to amend the hours of the Norwood, Henley Beach and Glenelg police stations, the government or the police commissioner?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, I think I have answered that question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is a very simple question: was it the government or the police commissioner?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will answer it one more time. That was our election commitment and we funded the civilian staff to go in there. The police commissioner then had police staff, which he assigns, freed up. I cannot say any more than that. That is the answer to the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So in the future, if a political commitment is made by a candidate or a political party or whatever, and they end up forming government and the funding is provided to deliver on that, then the police commissioner should comply with that? I just want to understand the principle here, because in the past the police commissioner decided to change the hours of Henley Beach, Glenelg and Norwood and now that decision has been changed—in your words—because of delivering an election commitment. I am trying to understand the interface between election commitments and government decisions—which are the words you used earlier—and the decisions of the police commissioner.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered that question. I can repeat it, it is up to you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you rule out—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order. I have listened carefully to the member for Croydon and—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What is your point of order?

The CHAIR: No, member for Croydon—

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order goes to standing order 271. The questions before this estimates committee need to relate to a line item—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes; Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, sub-program 1.1.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I will listen to the member for Heysen's point of order in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: —in the budget. The point of order goes to the nature of the inquiry, which is an inquiry as to future policy as opposed to the allocation of budget resources.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, it is not. I have asked a specific—

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I am listening to the member for Heysen's point of order. I will rule on it, and if you want to make deliberations after that you can.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What is your ruling?

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has not finished.

Mr TEAGUE: The point of order goes to the appropriate direction of a question to a budget item as opposed to an invitation to debate future policy considerations in relation to how policing or other matters may be determined in the future.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Heysen. As always you are very wise. I will continue to listen to the member for Croydon; I am sure he has quite a few questions on the budget and will continue to ask questions pertinent to the budget and directly in the budget, and the minister will continue to provide the answers as he sees fit.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So what is the ruling on the point of order?

The CHAIR: The point of order from the member for Heysen is correct. I ask you to ask your next question, member for Croydon. I uphold this point of order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The question I asked was in regard to police station hours—Norwood, Henley Beach and Glenelg—

The CHAIR: Are you debating the point of order? I am giving you—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am repeating my question.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I am giving you the floor to ask the minister a question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is: under the budget—Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, sub-program 1.1—does the minister commit that there will be no variation to police station hours over the life of the budget?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just remind me, because I got interrupted: what was the answer?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered that question a number of times.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What is the answer?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You can check Hansard. I have answered the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am asking you to repeat the answer. I do not think I have asked that question. I asked it in a particular format and the committee is entitled to an answer.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You have asked the question over and over. I have given you the answer over and over.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have not. It is a completely different question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have answered the question.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am not talking about Henley Beach, Norwood and Glenelg; I am talking about other stations. It is a crystal clear question and a non-answer will be a non-commitment to not vary other police station operations hours.

The CHAIR: Not at all, member for Croydon. Member for Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am sorry. What is the government's policy in regard to police station opening hours over the life of this budget?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The police commissioner is in charge of operations. I have given that answer a hundred times over. I cannot give it again.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You are in charge of opening hours.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You potentially talked about hypotheticals.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: You said before it was a government decision. The member for Colton is running around telling people that he gets the credit for the decision to extend the hours at Henley Beach.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, I hate to disappoint—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon! I hate to disappoint you but the footage tonight of today's estimates will be from Estimates Committee A, so there is no point in being hysterical.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: There is no point—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon!

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon! If you have a question to the minister—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I do. He is not answering.

The CHAIR: He has provided his answer. The reality is, it is the committee's estimates. The minister has been pretty direct in his—the minister believes he has answered the question.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister believes he has answered the question. He is repeating his answer. I am comfortable with the minister's answer.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: We can play this charade for the next 45 minutes, and I also ask you to withdraw that statement as well.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: What statement?

The CHAIR: That I am protecting the minister.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I did not say that.

The CHAIR: What did you say?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I said, 'In your objective opinion.'

The CHAIR: Well, are you saying my opinion is not objective?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am saying it is objective. That is what I just said.

The CHAIR: Very good. Well, if I am objective, I must be right. Member for Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget Measures Statement, page 140. My question also relates to police station opening hours. This goes to the country policing review. Minister, what correspondence have you had with Peter Gandolfi, the Mayor of Wattle Range Council, regarding the Kalangadoo Police Station?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have had a number of letters and potentially emails as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: Emails as well?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Potentially. I would have to check that. Just so that I am not misleading the committee, I will check and see if he has emailed me. I think Peter might be a letter writer. I think he is probably more of that ilk. I am sure it was a letter, but it could have been an email. I will check.

Mr ODENWALDER: He has written to me as well, just to keep you in the loop there, minister. Have you spoken to Mr Gandolfi at all?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I would have to go back and check my records. I did speak to a mayor in the South-East, or it may have been the acting CEO. I apologise that I cannot recall exactly, but I may have spoken to either the mayor or the CEO. I am not 100 per cent sure but I am heading down to the South-East in October.

Mr ODENWALDER: In a letter to you on 14 May, which I have here—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Is it a letter or an email?

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a letter.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He is a letter writer.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is certainly on Wattle Range Council letterhead. Mr Gandolfi claims that, in the lead-up to the March election, the Liberal Party made a commitment not to close any station in South Australia, including the Kalangadoo station. Is that true?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I was not shadow minister at the time, so I cannot confirm exactly what was said.

Mr ODENWALDER: You cannot confirm what the commitments were about police stations?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, the minister is not responsible for what a previous shadow minister may or may not—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He is responsible for the government's policy, sir.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, if you keep interrupting, you will not be participating in this estimates committee anymore.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Recall parliament.

The CHAIR: I am here tomorrow. I am happy to be back. I have no dramas.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Let's see if some of your country brethren would feel the same way.

The CHAIR: If you had some, you would be better off. If you want me to name you, I am happy to do that.

Mr ODENWALDER: It goes to, sir—

The CHAIR: No, I have not finished ruling. A minister is not responsible for a shadow minister's view prior to any general election. As always, I will allow the question to stand but, as always, the minister has the discretion to answer as he chooses.

Mr ODENWALDER: The question is whether Peter Gandolfi's statement is true.

The CHAIR: Whether Mr Gandolfi's statement is correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes. If it is true, not correct.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am probably going to give you the same answer that I gave a few moments ago to the member for Croydon; that is, that the police commissioner makes operational decisions about police. Just to clarify for the member for Croydon—because I gave this answer a few moments ago. Our election commitment was to fund civilians into police stations to extend the police station opening hours. We have delivered on that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, the police commissioner has delivered on that. This is where it gets confusing.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, are you asking a question?

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Croydon, if you are asking a question, you know how to ask it. Interruptions are not allowed.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To be clear, we funded civilians to go into police stations. That was our commitment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The commitment was to open the police stations.

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, and we funded civilians to be able to do that. The police commissioner then had police resources freed up, which he used at his discretion.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will you be making a similar arrangement with the police commissioner regarding country police stations?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That will be a conversation for the police commissioner. He is doing a—

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, I am asking you.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: He is doing a review of country police stations, and we are awaiting the review.

Mr ODENWALDER: When is that review likely to report?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is a comprehensive review. It has no end date. It is a comprehensive review right across the state, looking at policing right across South Australia. I will stand by for that from the commissioner in due course.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry, is this the country policing review or is this the Duggan review?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is the country policing review.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay. You responded to Mayor Gandolfi's letter by saying:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding police services in…Wattle Range…

The Liberal Government has recently commissioned an independent review of police work. The purpose of this review will be to reduce red tape so that police can streamline their operations…

Is that referring to the country policing review or is that referring to—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, that is referring to the Duggan review.

Mr ODENWALDER: Why is your response to me about country police stations that it is going to be resolved by the end of the country policing review, while your response to Mr Gandolfi was that—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am just informing Mr Gandolfi of the good work being done. That was an election commitment we took to the election, and that will also have some really good understandings and findings on how we can streamline policing and get better outcomes there. We are doing the Duggan review, which I can give you more detail on, if you like, and the police commissioner is doing the country policing review—and I have given the answer to that question.

Mr ODENWALDER: Alright.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 5, Part 2, Operating efficiencies. Has the police band of South Australia been quarantined from the operating efficiencies included in the police budget? This is page 139 of Budget Paper 5.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, there are no initiatives, that I am aware of, that have any reference to the police band.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No, that was not the question. I was not asking how they are going. I was asking: have they been quarantined from the operating efficiencies included within the police budget?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I have said along the way, the front-line sworn officers are all quarantined, so any members of the police band who are sworn officers will fit into the same catchment.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But they are not sworn officers.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As far as other efficiencies go, it is for the police commissioner to determine what he has, right across the board.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Okay. On the same item, is there a review underway into keeping the police band?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Correct me if I am wrong, because my memory might not be serving me very well, but are members of the police band active, sworn police?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, some are but not all. The majority are, I am informed.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Again, I ask, in regard to the savings measures, has the police band been quarantined from being affected in any way, or is that a matter for the police commissioner?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: To my understanding, I am not aware of any initiatives to target the police band for savings.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So the police band will not be targeted in savings?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No; I just gave the answer.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So what will be? Where is the $38 million in savings going to come from?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What I can say is that SAPOL's total incremental government recurrent expenditures savings target for 2018-19 is $21.8 million. That represents $10.7 million previously approved by the previous Labor government in the budget base and a new efficiency target of $11.1 million in the 2018-19 state budget. There is also revenue-related initiatives of $1.3 million in 2018-19. As for all government agencies, SAPOL faces some challenging savings targets. There will be an internal review of service delivery and support functions across the agency to examine more efficient ways of operating and prioritising its functions that will provide savings, including reductions in non-police workforce levels.

Operating efficiency measures being introduced have been applied to back-office activities and, I stress, do not impact on front-line service delivery or the 4,713 full-time equivalent (FTE) active police commitment. The commissioner has the discretion as to how the efficiencies will be achieved, based on the operational needs of SAPOL. SAPOL has both recurrent and interim saving measures identified in 2018-19. SAPOL has set up a budget review process to address the savings task over the forward estimates 2020-21.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Minister, how can you guarantee that front-line operations will not be affected when you do not know where the savings are going to come from? To put it another way: if you are not making the decisions and those decisions are being made by the police commissioner, how can you guarantee that front-line services will not be impacted? They will be impacted. We established earlier that the number of police during the year will diminish, but, 'Hey, on 30 June, everyone will be safe,' but outside of that, how can you guarantee that no front-line service will be impacted when you are not the person making the decisions about the cuts?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think I made it abundantly clear before. We talked about the fluctuation of staff and the understanding of 4,713 FTEs is that that is the number there on 30 June and there will be fluctuations, depending on when people retire and when people graduate. If I can state the point again: this will not impact on the delivery of the 4,713 full-time equivalent active police commitment, and that is the commitment. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. That is the statement that I have made.

What I do want to point out, though—and I mentioned it in the opening paragraph—is that of the efficiency targets that are in place, it must be really clear that the previous government approved $10.7 million of efficiency targets and we have put an efficiency target of $11.1 million this calendar year. If we go back—and this is a little bit cheeky that you talk about this—the previous government had an efficiency target of $10.7 million in 2018-19, and we had one at $12.5 million. In 2019-20, that efficiency target of $20.3 million—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: $20.3 million?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Ours was $12.5 million.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is that correct?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, that is correct. For 2021, the previous government had an efficiency target of $22.1 million, and ours is $13.8 million. The previous government in the forward estimates had an efficiency target in 2021-22 of $24.6 million, and ours is $14.1 million. So it is a bit rich that you talk about where our efficiencies are going to come from with that comparison. I stress the point again: for 2018-19, the previous Labor government's was $10.7 million, ours is $12.5 million. In 2019-20, yours was $20.3 million, and ours is $12.5 million. In 2020-21, yours was $22.9 million and ours is $13.8 million. In 2021-22, yours was $24.6 million, and ours is $14.1 million.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is 4,713 active sworn police the number of police that is required to not impact on front-line services?

The CHAIR: You are referring to?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13, Workforce summary. I will start again. Is 4,713 active sworn police the number that you need to not impact front-line services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not sure—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Let me rephrase: is 4,713 active sworn FTE police officers the number you need to be able to deliver services? If it goes below that, presumably it impacts front-line services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As we have talked about before, give or take cadet academies finishing, people retiring, what time of year they are going to retire, etc.—and, as is pointed out, along with the cyber crime specialists and the like, which of course eat slightly into the 4,713—that is the number of front-line police that we have committed to. Putting more police on the front line is something that we view as very important.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On the same budget paper item, would you acknowledge that if the number of police falls below 4,713 active sworn FTEs, then that would have an impact on front-line services?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, to clarify: I am not sure where you are going with this, but—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am just asking a simple question; no trick questions.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The cycle means that it is 4,713 on 30 June, and the cycle will mean that during the course of the year—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Is crime higher on 30 June than it is on 1 January?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, this is the commitment that you had as well, as far as I am aware, that you would land 4,713 on 30 June.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That was the target to get to 30 June, but then it would be maintained from there on in.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The target, as far as I am aware, is 4,713 on 30 June. That is what PASA is accepting of, and that is the commitment, to have 4,713. There will be fluctuations throughout the course of the year—I can see that—but 4,713 is the number of police that we have to have on 30 June, and we will be maintaining that.

Can I just say, as far as some of the efficiency targets are concerned as well, I can give you a couple of the measures that are in place to produce those, if you would like. As I am informed, they include the release of uncommitted provisions established from withholding part CPI funding and strategies achieved in advance of targets; redirecting operating capital budget to investing spend and deferring operating capital spend to 2019-20; and cadet efficiencies from rephasing the cadet intakes within the same year, greater youth cadet targets (increased to 30 per cent of total intakes) and 10.6 FTE adjustment to cadet intakes due to more accurate accounting for part-time police employees in the CHRIS21 system versus the replaced HRMS system. There is no impact on the 4,713 FTE active police commitment, as I have pointed out and stressed.

Further measures include unsworn efficiencies of an indicative 24.7 FTE reduction in 2018-19; targeting operating reductions (including fleets, travel and accommodation, general operating and reductions in expenditure areas based on historic trends); and savings as a result of delaying from 2018-19 to 2019-20 the implementation of the MOS extended hours 24/7 roster relating to the districts policing model.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will go back to Budget measures, page 140, and opening hours. I just want to finish off on the country policing review and particularly the issue of Kalangadoo Police Station. Minister, have you had any conversations since the election with the commissioner regarding the Kalangadoo Police Station, and at any point did he convey to you that it was his understanding that keeping Kalangadoo Police Station open was an election commitment of the government which had to be met?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. I say that with the proviso that the police commissioner did mention to me that his parents-in-law once owned the pub in Kalangadoo, which I thought was interesting when we were talking about Kalangadoo. That was when he said that he was doing a regional policing review and that is still progressing and he will keep you updated on that as it travels along. I was intrigued to know that his in-laws owned the Kalangadoo Hotel. I am heading that way in October and I might even slip by and have a lemon squash at least, if I am there.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has been seeking the call for quite a long time and I will go to him and flick back to the—

Mr ODENWALDER: The minister is doing fine.

The CHAIR: The minister is doing extraordinarily well but, as I ruled previously, I want all my committee members to be able to participate in estimates.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This perhaps follows on and expands on the member for Elizabeth's question. I thought it might be an opportunity to ask the minister in relation to Agency Statements, Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, at page 12 and over to 13. Minister, could you please clarify the status of the review of SAPOL police work?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for his interest in this area, and I know he is very keen about the role of policing in South Australia. During the 2018 South Australian election, the Marshall government made a commitment to commission a retired judge or senior lawyer to lead a review of all aspects of police work, the intention being to seek identification of time and productivity efficiencies, to streamline operations and reduce administrative burdens on front-line policing.

On 20 June 2018, the Marshall government announced that the Hon. Kevin Duggan AM QC had been appointed to conduct the review. Mr Duggan is a highly esteemed member of the South Australian community with longstanding experience and expertise in criminal justice, having been a justice of the Supreme Court. In addition, a small team has been established at SAPOL to assist Mr Duggan as required, and preliminary discussions have been held on what support will be required.

It is expected that Mr Duggan will commence work on the review at the beginning of October 2018. It is anticipated that Mr Duggan will report back to government by October 2019. Mr Duggan is in the process of finalising how he will undertake the review, including consultation with stakeholders, including the SAPOL support team and the Police Association of South Australia. The terms of reference for the review are:

1. The arrest and charging process used by charging officers.

2. The requirements of officers to supervise suspects and arrestees in stations and throughout transport and any options to use auxiliaries or new initiatives instead.

3. The processes of police prosecutors and officers working on police prosecution, specifically reviewing where efficiencies can be improved.

4. The time spent by officers during court proceedings especially when providing evidence in a matter, and any relationship this may have with major indictable offences reform recently commenced.

5. The processes and requirements of officers in producing evidence for trial and any relationship this may have with major indictable reform recently commenced.

6. Relevant legislative provisions, statutory obligations, accountability requirements and internal protocols aiding red tape and reducing efficiencies in front-line policing.

7. The use of technology-based justice measures like video-enabled justice to reduce red tape and increase efficiencies in policing.

8. Any other measures or policies to improve red tape reduction in front-line policing.

9. Any other matters arising that Mr Duggan considers relevant and that are in line with community expectations.

Mr ODENWALDER: I might just change tack for a second and go to Budget Measures Statement, page 137, which is about the changes to the length of the cadet course. Minister, will there be any impact on Police Academy staffing due to the policy change to reduce the cadet course from 12 to 11 months?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No impact to the 4,713.

Mr ODENWALDER: No impact to the Police Academy staff?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, okay. Was the shortening of the length of the cadet course a recommendation from SAPOL?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What has happened here with this—and this is an interesting program, and it has been, perhaps, not necessarily misreported but misconstrued by some people—is that it will now be an 11-month course and not a 12-month course. In the past I think it has been six months and nine months. I am not sure how long it was when you went through, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Three weeks.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Three weeks—they got you through in three weeks?

Mr ODENWALDER: That is right. I was rushed through.

The CHAIR: They could not get him out quick enough.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We are not shortening it to three weeks. I know when the commissioner went through it was two years; we are not going back there either. It is at 11 months. Jump in any time, commissioner, and correct me if I am wrong, but it was an 18-month probation. This reprofiling means that it will be an 11-month course and a 19-month probation, so that will allow more on-the-job training at the academy, so that balance will be split between the 11 months and the 19 months, as opposed to 12 months and 18 months.

So it is the same amount training; the net effect is the same. The first 11-month cadet program will commence from July 2019, and an 11-month cadet course will result in all cadet intakes from 2019-20 and annually thereafter, now commencing one month later, with no impact on the original graduation dates. Therefore, this budget measure does not impact on the 4,713 FTE active police commitment, which I know the member for Croydon will be very interested in.

Normally the annual cadet intake budget is 144 FTEs to address recruitment and annual attrition, estimated at 140 per annum. The cadet attrition of four FTEs and a reduction in duration of one month's training for 144 cadets equates to approximately a $1.3 million saving per annum by 2021-22. These savings take into account a one-month lag on the future ranked progression to positions with higher remuneration and associated employee on-costs, penalties and allowances. So no impact on the training of the cadets. As I said, what was a 12-month course and an 18-month probation is now an 11-month course and a 19-month probation. I think that is a good initiative.

Mr ODENWALDER: So a 19-month probation—that means you are transferring some of that training to the probationary phase?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is all very interesting, minister, but my question was: was this a recommendation from SAPOL or was it a decision of government.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It was a recommendation of SAPOL.

Mr ODENWALDER: Okay.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Croydon, do you have a question?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Oh, come on!

The CHAIR: No, don't 'come on' me! If the member for Croydon has a question, I will allow him to ask it. He is just chewing up your time, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order—can I have a point of order? You have been very generous to the member for Heysen. My point of order—

The CHAIR: What number?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, in your opening statement, sir, to these committee meetings, every time we meet you make the point that it is a relaxed atmosphere.

The CHAIR: I do not think it says 'relaxed atmosphere' at all.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, no: so questions can come and go with relative ease. In fact, I will pull you up on another point of order. When the minister directs one of his advisers to answer the—

The CHAIR: I am not sure what the point of order is, because points of order can only be found in this green book here, as you know, and that is certainly the case. You are just chewing up your time, but it does not bother me.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think we should take a more relaxed approach, as previous eminent chairs have.

The CHAIR: I will reflect over the lunch break and you can bring me some chocolate and we will see how we go. Member for Elizabeth, do you have a question—I would ask it.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do. I have lost my page now, sir.

The CHAIR: Sorry for breaking your stride.

Mr ODENWALDER: You absolutely did, sir, but that is alright, that is your job. I will continue talking about cadets. I wanted to clarify a couple of minor points. At what point is a cadet counted as a sworn police officer? Is it at that moment in the graduation ceremony when they are handed the certificate of authority and shake the commissioner's hand and that sort of thing? That is the point where they become full sworn police officers?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is on swearing in at graduation. I am not sure if it is at that point when they shake hands or when the hat goes in the air.

Mr ODENWALDER: I suspect it is the certificate of authority.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I always like the hat going in the air myself.

Mr ODENWALDER: The commissioner is nodding, for the Hansard.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I like the tradition.

Mr ODENWALDER: At what point of the cadet phase or the probationary constable phase is driver training provided? My question is: at what point are they fully qualified to drive urgent duty—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is provided within cadet training, I am informed.

Mr ODENWALDER: And that will remain in the 11-month course?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I am informed that is correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it the same with firearms training?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that that is correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: So currently it is provided completely within the cadet phase and that will remain?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Who identified, or who will identify, which parts of the curriculum are surplus to requirements in that cadet phase? Has there been any detailed work undertaken, and is it possible to provide any of that to the committee?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that it is likely to be cutting out one week of annual leave, one week of out phase and then cutting out, or moving out, the equivalent of two weeks of scheduled downtime or non-core program time—i.e. info sessions with Legacy or Maxxia.

Mr ODENWALDER: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 13. Can you give us a quick update of how the fifty-fifty recruitment program is going?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The commissioner can give you an update on this one.

Cmmr STEVENS: Thank you, minister. In terms of our gender parity strategy, which was announced on 1 January 2016 and commenced after that date, the target was for gender parity in each recruit training course at the time of commencement of that course. I am pleased to be able to say that every recruit course that has commenced since that day has met that gender parity target. It goes without saying that, as a result of attrition of some cadets, there is no guarantee that the gender parity target is met at time of graduation; that is subject to cadet performance.

It was of particular concern, as we ramped up to complete 313, that fulfilling the government's commitment to finalising 313 may have had an impact on the SAPOL target of gender parity but, once again, I was very pleased to be able to announce that we exceeded the fifty-fifty gender parity target during the entire recruit phase, in accordance with the effort to deliver on the government target.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand the problem of achieving gender parity in the police force. Are the attrition rates about the same across the genders, given the difference in starting points?

Cmmr STEVENS: The attrition rates are higher for female sworn police officers.

Mr ODENWALDER: As a percentage.

Cmmr STEVENS: Correct, as a percentage. One of the challenges for us is to ensure that we provide a workplace that recognises the particular needs of all employees. We are doing significant work in the area of flexible working arrangements and access to opportunities to ensure that women are provided every opportunity to retain their employment with SAPOL throughout the course of their work life.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 21, Activity indicators, statistics and so on. Minister, are there any particular movements in recent crime statistics that are of note or that the community should be concerned about? Are there any particular spikes in activity?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have a bit of detail on this and I was trying to abbreviate it but I do not think I can. I will give you all the information.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not need all the crime stats, I just need to know if there is anything we need to be concerned about.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I just want to explain the bigger picture here to understand your question which was about crimes to be concerned about—of course, any crime is a concern. Let's work through some of the key content.

Mr ODENWALDER: Let's assume for argument's sake that some crimes are of more concern than others.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Overall in 2017-18, offences against the person increased by 0.7 per cent or 168 offences compared to 2016-17. However, the number of offences in 2017-18 was lower than 2008-09 with 24,291 offences.

Mr ODENWALDER: 2008-09?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, it is lower in 2017-18 than it was back then. Sexual assault and related offences increased by 16.1 per cent or 295 offences; 2,122 at 2017-18; 1,827 in 2016-17. There are increases in all three subgroups, with aggravated sexual assault increasing by 9.1 per cent or 105 offences; non-aggravated sexual assault by 20.6 per cent or 68 offences; and non-assaultive sexual offences by 36.1 per cent or 122 offences. One prolific offender contributed to much of this increase.

Other results were mixed. Common assault increased by 3.4 per cent or 226 offences; 6,927 in 2017-18; 6,701 in 2016-17. Whereas threatening behaviour decreased by 19.3 per cent or 216 offences; 909 in 2017-18; 1,120 in 2016-17. In 2017-18, offences against property increased by 0.1 per cent or 77 offences compared to 2016-17. Theft and related offences increased by 3.6 per cent or 1,579 offences. Within this category, theft from motor vehicles increased by 3.7 per cent or 325 offences. Theft from shops increased by 12 per cent or 985 offences.

Other theft, which includes petrol drive-offs, increased by 0.9 per cent or 192 offences. Receive or handle proceeds of crime increased by 15.9 per cent or 224 offences. Theft from shops has steadily increased over the last five years. Serious criminal trespass offences decreased by 11.9 per cent or 1,627 offences. Within this category, serious criminal trespass (residence) decreased by 10.3 per cent or 906 offences, and serious criminal trespass (non-residence) by 14.8 per cent or 721 offences. They are some of the numbers.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you tell me, minister, how often this is updated on the SAPOL website? I imagine you would agree with me that pretty timely access to this kind of data is important for a number of reasons, not least of which to make people feel safe, but last time I checked—and I could be wrong—the data has not been updated since May. Can you tell me why that is? Is that a usual turnaround time?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed the data is put up monthly but as they get closer to the annual report they hold off on data to make sure that the data aligns with the annual report. That is the information I have been given. I will let the commissioner add a comment.

Cmmr STEVENS: The monthly data may differ to the final results in the annual report on the basis that there is a cleansing process that occurs with all data to remove duplication and incorrect reporting and matters which are withdrawn. So whilst we put the information up to the community so that they have an understanding of the incidence of crime, which can be searched by location as well, we suspend putting that up in the weeks preceding the compilation of the annual report data so that there can be no incorrect correlation of what is on our website and what is produced in the annual report.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand. So matters that are withdrawn do not appear on the stats at all after the cleansing process? Is that right?

Cmmr STEVENS: I think if there is no offence identified as a result of inquiry, that matter is not included as a reported crime, but that is after a matter has been reported to police. When a police incident report has been recorded on the system and due inquiry finds that no offence was actually committed, that matter is not included.

Mr ODENWALDER: Notwithstanding the level of detail the minister went into earlier, are there any plans to publish more details on these datasets? There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years about separating domestic violence offences, for instance, and we have had ongoing discussions about that. Are there any moves towards making a lot more data open?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will let the commissioner answer that as well.

Cmmr STEVENS: We are continually examining how we can release as much data to the community as possible. We were one of the first jurisdictions to provide crime data in relation to suburbs. We do examine where there is potential for victims of crime to be identified as a result of the information we release. An example of that may be a sexual assault in a relatively low-populated area where people are likely to know each other. However, we are constantly examining what we can release, ensuring the integrity of the data and also that we do not inadvertently revictimise victims of crime.

Mr ODENWALDER: On the same page, minister, can you tell me the total number of calls to Crime Stoppers in the last financial year and as a percentage of the total calls to the call centre?

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, can you confirm where we are?

Mr ODENWALDER: We are still on the same page: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Agency Statements, page 21, Activity indicators.

The CHAIR: Thank you very much.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have just been informed that there were 20,417 Crime Stoppers calls received in 2016-17 and 20,355 in 2017-18, down approximately 80.

Mr ODENWALDER: And what is that as a percentage of the total? As I understand it, they all go to the call centre. What is the percentage of calls to Crime Stoppers in relation to the total number of calls? Can you tease that out?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As a percentage? I would have to take that on notice.

Mr ODENWALDER: If you could also take on notice the total number of calls regarding illicit drugs.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not sure we would have a breakdown of calls regarding illicit drugs. I am happy to have a look and I will come back to you if there is a figure for that. What I can give you, which may help, is the following information. There were 478,447 calls received on 131 444 in 2016-17and 485,643 in 2017-18. In relation to call centre police incident reports—which are incident reports taken by the call centre—there were 39,712 in 2016-17 and 42,426 in 2017-18. There were 26,469 call centre traffic complaint reports in 2016-17 and 26,128 in 2017-18. And, as I mentioned, Crime Stoppers received 20,417 calls in 2016-17 and 20,355 calls in 2017-18. I have been informed that the percentage of calls received by Crime Stoppers is 4 per cent. In addition, there were 154,763 calls to 000 in 2016-17 and 154,665 in 2017-18.

Mr ODENWALDER: Why will the government not fund Crime Stoppers to any extent?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am just looking for the budget line. I am not sure that you have one.

Mr ODENWALDER: There is a mention of online reports to Crime Stoppers, so I assume SAPOL—

The CHAIR: Page 21, member for Elizabeth, is about activity indicators.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is right. There is a relationship between SAPOL and Crime Stoppers.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What I can say is that Crime Stoppers SA Incorporated was established in 1996—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I know the history; I have it written here as well—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Listen—and is a not-for-profit program operating under licence from Crime Stoppers Australia—

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, this was not the question; we are running out of time.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is good to get this background. Its activities are governed by the constitution of CSSA Inc and by the Associations Incorporation Act 1985. The program is governed by a board of non-executive directors. The board of Crime Stoppers SA includes an assistant commissioner and a superintendent.

Crime Stoppers plays a critical role in encouraging members of the public to come forward with information to help solve crimes and to be alert—

Mr ODENWALDER: So why do you not fund it?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Let me finish, please—and to be alert and engaged with their community. Crime Stoppers provides a secure way for information about illegal activity and unsolved crimes to be reported to police. Crime Stoppers works with police, business and the public to solve, reduce and prevent crime.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well Chair, now we have established that the question was in order—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Standby. SAPOL maintains the Crime Stoppers section as part of the State Intelligence Branch. The Crime Stoppers section is staffed by one senior sergeant coordinator, one sergeant and one brevet sergeant intelligence officer.

Mr ODENWALDER: We know this.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Hang on. So there is that commitment to Crime Stoppers. Administrative support is provided by the State Intelligence Branch. SAPOL also provides call centre staffing as they answer the 1800 333 000 telephone calls, triage, and provides information for immediate actioning or to the Crime Stoppers section for value adding in nonurgent matters. Police operational staff than action the incoming information through normal investigative processes, reporting outcomes back to Crime Stoppers.

I have scoured past budget papers, and Crime Stoppers has never had ongoing support or funding from the previous Labor government other than the continued resources I have just mentioned. So for Crime Stoppers it is the same now as it was before, nothing has changed.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is not true that nothing has changed. Has the minister met with or had any direct contact with the CE or anyone from the board of Crime Stoppers since budget day?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Since budget day, me or my office?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I think my office has spoken to Crime Stoppers a couple of times. I may have a meeting coming up but I would have to check my diary, I do not want to mislead the committee. However my office has been in touch with Crime Stoppers, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is it your intention, is it the government's intention, not to fund Crime Stoppers into the future other than those in-kind ways you mentioned?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just outlined that I have been through the budget papers, and we will continue to fund Crime Stoppers as it has been in the past with those supports from SAPOL. I have looked through the budget papers, and the previous government did not have ongoing funding support for Crime Stoppers.

Mr ODENWALDER: I understand you are committed to that in-kind support. My question is: are you refusing to fund it into the future, is it your intention not to fund Crime Stoppers in any other way into the future?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is how Crime Stoppers has been funded in the past, and I will continue to fund it as it has been funded—

Mr ODENWALDER: Chair, that is not the question.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you do know we have opened this financial year's budget papers. I am sure with the next year's financial year's budget papers you can come back and ask the minister a question there.

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget papers go for four years, Chair.

The CHAIR: In terms of activity on page 21, we are looking at—

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget papers go across the four years, so my question—

The CHAIR: The line we have open right now, today, the question you are asking is for 2018-19 projection only.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question goes to the minister's intention.

The CHAIR: And the minister can choose to answer as he sees fit.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. To be clear, the previous government did not fund Crime Stoppers.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is not right.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It is absolutely right.

Mr ODENWALDER: There is $960,000.

The CHAIR: We are not here to—

Mr ODENWALDER: There is $960,000—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, time—

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There was $960,000—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It was never put in their account; you have never actually given them $960,000 over the course of a year.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, the member for Croydon has just come clean and said they have never given Crime Stoppers any money.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That is right, we committed to give them $960,000.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Unfortunately there have been a lot of commitments you guys made that you have not delivered on in the past. That money was not in the bank. In 16 years of government, the previous government never gave funding to Crime Stoppers. They gave that in-kind support I just outlined, which we are continuing.

Mr ODENWALDER: So the answer is that you are refusing to fund Crime Stoppers into the future.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The answer is we are continuing the same support that was given by the previous government. That is what they gave and that is what we are going to give. Crime Stoppers will keep delivering its outcomes as it always has and I will—

The CHAIR: Order! We are almost in the luncheon adjournment. I have been very generous. I am not going to have this constant debate across the chamber. Member for Elizabeth, you have 1½ minutes to go. Please ask your next question.

Mr ODENWALDER: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4—

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just want to be clear on the response to that answer—

Mr ODENWALDER: No; I had the call. I think the Chair gave me the call.

The CHAIR: Minister, the member has the call.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, sir. Can the minister update the committee on the progress of your sniffer dogs in schools policy? Is this your responsibility?

The CHAIR: Member—

Mr ODENWALDER: I beg your pardon: Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 19, Crime and Criminal Justice Services.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I have just been given an update on that. SAPOL is working very closely with Education on that, Education has the lead. We are finalising the methodology on how that is going forward. I note it is a policy supported by the Labor government, and I appreciate the support of the member for Croydon on this policy. He has been out there publicly saying that he believes it is a good policy. We will be delivering on that. As I said, that sits with the Minister for Education, so if you have other questions on that I am happy to direct them to the Minister for Education.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately time has expired, and I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the portfolio SAPOL and the estimated payments for South Australia Police and administered items for South Australia Police completed.

Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 13:45.