House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Robinson, Mr S.A. ROBINSON, MR S.A. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Deputy Leader of the Opposition ROBINSON, MR S.A. Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My questions are again to the Minister for Police. What priority was given to the outstanding warrant for the arrest of Shane Andrew Robinson, and what is the system of prioritising the arrest warrants issued by the Parole Board? The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT House of Assembly Lee Minister for Police Minister for Emergency Services Minister for Recreation ROBINSON, MR S.A. The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:44): Before responding to the member's question I would like to advise the house that the officer stabbed during last week's incident is recovering well and is now resting at home. During the last couple of days the opposition leader has suggested that South Australian police do not do enough or did not give enough priority to executing a Parole Board warrant issued on Shane Andrew Robinson. Last week's incident had absolutely nothing to do with police resources, the endeavour by SAPOL, or the priority given to the execution of the Parole Board warrant. I am advised by South Australia Police that on 22 June, after a visit and search of Robinson's last known address by Elizabeth CIB, it was clear that Shane Robinson was no longer residing at his last known address. This amounted to a breach of his parole conditions and also a breach of his ANCOR conditions, as he is required to notify both the police and the Parole Board if he changes address. Robinson's parole officer was spoken to by telephone on the 22^nd by the supervisor of the Elizabeth tactical team, and subsequently the supervisor sent an official email to the parole officer to advise the Parole Board of the breaches. The email stated, 'I have serious concerns that he is a risk to public and police safety at this time.' Concerns raised by SAPOL were included in a minute sent to the secretary of the Parole Board later that day. In fact, it was recommended that one of the considerations given to revoking his parole was concerns for community and police safety. Two days later, on 24 June, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Shane Robinson. As a result, SAPOL systems were flagged and police continued to actively seek Robinson. This included attending addresses and speaking with known associates and relatives, including his father, and friends. It also included circulating photos of Shane Robinson at caravan parks where he was known to stay. In summary, SAPOL were very proactive in seeking out Shane Andrew Robinson. It is simply wrong for the opposition even to suggest that last week's incident was in any way attributed to police resources or SAPOL's prioritisation of the execution of warrants. Last night the Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying, 'I think it's a bit of presumption to decide who has been doing their job and who hasn't.' Yet she was quick to announce a new policy that will tell police how they should prioritise the execution of warrants. This proposal by the opposition leader is not only an insult to the state's highest ranking officer but to the thousands of men and women in uniform. The day-to-day operations of South Australian police have traditionally, and appropriately, been the police commissioner's responsibility. He and his senior officers are best placed to make such decisions, and for the opposition leader to question or doubt their expert judgment and ability is appalling. The fact is that South Australian police already prioritise warrants, and the matter in question was treated as a high priority. The opposition leader is endeavouring to demean the great reputation and record of one of the finest police forces in Australia.