Motions

South Australia Police

Debate resumed.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:40): I rise to reinforce the points made by my colleague, the member for Little Para, who was himself a long-serving police officer, so he probably knows more about policing—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It was eight years, wasn't it?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, he certainly served as a police officer—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can't hear the member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —and we should all be very proud of his contribution to the police service while he was there. We are not going to support this motion. We only have to look at the member for Bragg's contribution, which was riddled with errors to a very great extent.

Mr Whetstone: Succinct.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It might have been succinct, but it was incorrect what she was saying.

Mr Whetstone: What was incorrect?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will just go on. The member for Bragg spoke in one instance about workers compensation and us coming in and doing this, and on one hand we want it to be an operational matter so we can let the commissioner do what he wants and, in her view, absolve ourselves of any responsibility. Last time I remember, workers compensation is not an operational issue.

Ms Chapman: Not now.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It never has been an operational issue, Vickie, and you know that.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader was heard in silence and I would ask her to listen.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Bragg also talked about women police officers, insinuating that that was the idea of government when it was clearly the commissioner's idea, and I support his idea. It was only a few weeks ago that we were celebrating the contribution of women in the police force in South Australia, and it appears that the member for Bragg is saying to us that we have directed the commissioner, and that is not true. There are just two mistakes, and I will leave it there, because I could go on and on, but I am not going to.

Mr Pederick: Go on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: It seems to me that the opposition are purely speculating. It was only as recent as yesterday, when reading the Hansard from the other place, that the Minister for Police was asked a question about the 313 police officers that was a commitment of the state government prior to the election. He confirmed that that commitment still exists and those police officers will be delivered.

Mr Whetstone: When?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It's going to be done.

Mr Gardner: It's already been delayed five years.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you sit down, member for Colton. Members are aware of the standing orders: 131 specifically precludes you speaking over another speaker. I would ask you to listen to the speaker in silence and I will ensure you are given the same courtesy. We have guests in the gallery, which is another reason I think we should observe the standing orders. The member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I would very much appreciate them showing the same courtesy that I showed them—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just go on with your speech.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —when they were speaking.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On with the show.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Stuart said something like—I will paraphrase him here and he will correct me if I am wrong—that by not supporting this motion we are not supporting police. I think the member for Little Para said he found that offensive. I find it highly offensive, because we only have to look at the record of the opposition those many, many years ago when they were actually in government as to what happened with the police service during that period of time, and you let it run down.

Ms Redmond: Rubbish!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Heysen, you are not in your seat; do not open your mouth again, please.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The opposition even removed police officers from the APY lands. We finished up reinstating those, as we did with—

Mr Whetstone: Let's talk about Henley Beach.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, I am going to get to Henley Beach—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I showed him courtesy too, as difficult as it was, Deputy Speaker. The member for Little Para also reinforced the point that the 2015-16 police budget will rise to approximately $850 million. That is the highest level that has ever occurred in this state in our police force. So, we stand by that particular record. The evidence shows that we not only stand by it, but members of our community—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

Ms Redmond: I was talking to him.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It doesn't matter. You weren't; don't tell fibs.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —have benefited from this, because we have seen a commensurate reduction in criminal offences, and that is a good thing. We support the police, and we will always support the police. We will also support the police to operate as the commissioner and the force sees fit. That is their responsibility; it is not for us to interfere with them. I was certainly offended by the comments of the member for Bragg that we pick and choose when we want to intervene.

In relation to Henley Beach, I will say this: staffing hours are a generally a matter for the commissioner. I have had some concerns expressed by my constituents in relation to a reduction in police hours, as it appeared in the paper. I did the right thing: I spoke with the minister's office about this. I have spoken with local police officers as well, and I have passed on those concerns, going through the proper channels to do so.

We know the commissioner has undertaken an organisational review, and it is quite appropriate for him to do so. I do not think it is very helpful for this parliament to intervene during that operational review with the matters proposed in these terms of reference. I think it is just a nonsense. More importantly, I think, quite clearly, the opposition are just wanting to play politics with this particular matter.

On the Henley police station, I remember it being built because I lived just over the road. It used to be a paddock before they put the police station there—I think it was old railways land. It was an old station, it was a tired station, and it needed to be replaced. What the member for Bragg has to realise as well is that its primary purpose is as an operation base for patrols. It has been built in such a way that will increase the number of patrols that can operate out of that venue.

The simple fact is that the reason we have been able to reduce crime stats in this state is because we have police out in the community, and that is where they need to be. The member for Bragg also raised the issue about Henley Beach being a 24—

Mr Pengilly: He's kidding himself.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The only joke here is the member for Finniss. The member for Bragg also spoke about the transformation of Henley Beach, which is something I am very proud of—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure this won't be frivolous, member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: I am sure it won't, because the member for Colton is reflecting on another member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to keep listening to him.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The member for Bragg said that Henley is a 24/7 area of heightened activity. If there was an incident in Henley Square, and the police station was staffed with two police officers, as it normally was, they would not attend that incident. They would get onto the phone to the patrols that were out there and have them attend. The same will occur—

Ms Redmond: You're joking.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I'm not joking; they would not—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Colton, it is unparliamentary to make interjections or to respond to them. Everybody needs to remember the standing orders.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They would not leave their post. They would get onto the phone to ensure that patrols attended that area. During those busy periods, we see an increased presence, quite appropriately, of patrols visiting our coastline.

The matter of operating hours is really a matter for the commissioner. I have put my views through the right channels to the minister's office on this particular issue. But, at the same time, it is not appropriate for the government to interfere on what is an operational review that is being conducted by Commissioner Stevens.

The member for Bragg talks about broken promises. I cannot see where we have broken one single promise. In fact, it was reinforced yesterday by the Minister for Police in another place, that we remain committed to recruiting the additional 313 police officers by 30 June 2018.

I do not see that this motion is appropriate. I do not think that the house should waste its time on this particular motion. I think we all ought to show the support that we should for the commissioner with respect to the consultation that he is going through in regard, in the first instance, to this operational review, and the outcomes of that operational review. I certainly, on this side, will not be supporting this motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:50): Of course, I am very disappointed that the government will not support this motion. I listened to the words of the member for Little Para very closely, and he is a person for whom I have respect, and a friendship with as well, but that does not mean that we agree on everything.

The issue about the independence of the commissioner goes without saying. There is nobody in opposition who does not think that the police commissioner should not have independence to make the decisions that he (or one day she) needs to make. Every single thing I said in moving this motion was about the fact that the government's resources are not supporting the commissioner, so that he is not able to make the decisions that he should be able to make to fulfil what our community expects.

For the government to talk about police per capita on the one hand and say, 'Look how wonderful the government is because we have more police per capita than any other state,' and then at the same time say, 'We have more police per capita than any other state, so we can cut their budget; we are doing okay, we can drag them back,' does not make sense at all. I remind the government that former police commissioner, Gary Burns, back in February 2013, said that judging police forces by sworn officers per capita of state population is not a realistic, not a fair and not a useful way of comparing police forces between states.

There are many things that members on the other side spoke about when they were trying to explain why they are not going to support our South Australian police by supporting this committee, but what they did not do was address the foundation of this motion; that is, that a joint select committee is sought in an effort to support SAPOL to identify where the government is not providing police with the resources they need and to encourage the government to support SAPOL better. Now, what member of parliament could not agree to do that?

I think the government is fearful of any investigation whatsoever of the impact of its resources upon SAPOL. For the government to say repeatedly, 'We are going to stick to our commitment to recruit an extra 313 net new police officers in South Australia,' is absolutely ridiculous when, at the same time, we have them cutting the police budget by $261 million over four years. At the same time, the commissioner is saying, loud and clear, that he cannot deliver on that promise for the government unless he gets an extra $8 million per year in his budget.

It is preposterous for the government to say that they are still going to deliver on that promise unless, of course, they are going to adjust the promise again. Initially, the promise was going to be that it would happen by 2014; now it is going to happen by 2018. Initially, the promise only referred to sworn officers, and specifically excluded cadets; now the government includes cadets. So, perhaps the government is now going to try to say that if they recruit additional civilians to work in SAPOL that that will form part of their delivery on the promise. If that were to be the case, that would be absolutely ridiculous and completely unacceptable.

I think it is fair to say that if members on either side of this chamber support police officers and support SAPOL as an organisation, that they would support the establishment of this committee, because this committee is all about supporting SAPOL. This committee is about trying to identify, very clearly, where and how government budget cuts are forcing the police commissioner to make decisions he would not otherwise make.

I support the police commissioner wholeheartedly in making bold, innovative, technology-adopting changes to SAPOL so that our police force can stay with the times and be innovative. It is not about having 6'4" blokes go into pubs, bashing people up and kicking them out of the way, as it might have been 150 years ago; it is now a high-tech business. It now requires a whole range of people with a whole range of skills.

The commissioner needs to have the flexibility to adjust SAPOL, but he cannot do it with his hands tied behind his back because the government continues to cut his budget. I think it is a great shame that the government is not going to support the establishment of this select committee which would support our South Australian police force.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 18

Noes 22

Majority 4

Motion thus negatived.