House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Statutes Amendment (Assaults on Police Officers) Bill Statutes Amendment (Assaults on Police Officers) Bill Statutes Amendment (Assaults on Police Officers) Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 19 February 2025.) The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta) (10:32): I am very pleased today to stand in support of the bill that has been brought to the parliament by the member for Bragg, the shadow minister for police. I hope that all members of parliament will support this bill. It is a sad state of affairs where we have members of our police force being attacked seemingly with impunity on our streets. We had a police officer scalped, for goodness sake. We have had people attacked with weapons—with swords. I think the community has had a serious level of concern about the lack of redress, the lack of protection that it seems are being applied to our frontline serving police officers by the court system. The decision by the District Court in relation to the sentence of Raina Jane Cruise for viciously attacking a female police officer in October 2021, when the officer, who was pregnant, was kicked in the stomach and lost a huge chunk of skin and hair from her scalp—the decision for that sentence to be suspended has stunned and shocked a lot of South Australians. It was deeply distressing to me. I am sure it was for members of the government too. The opposition is appalled, and the shadow police minister, the member for Bragg, has seen this and taken action. These laws, which I will outline in a moment, have indeed been supported by the key stakeholder group that are impacted here, the Police Association of South Australia, the union for police officers in this state. I recognise that while some unions in the private and non-government sector and some, indeed, in the public sector have low membership—where 13, 20, 40 per cent of various workforces are members of the union—the Police Association has consistently had the support and paid-up dues of as many as 98 per cent, certainly more than 95 per cent, of serving South Australian police officers. When they say that they speak in support of the opposition's bill, they do so with significant authority. Since the member for Bragg brought this bill to the house, I note that on 21 February this year, which on my calculation is about a week and a half ago, the Police Association of South Australia has posted on the website formerly known as Twitter: Some good news has emerged about the assault-police legislative reforms proposed by the Police Association last month. A bill outlining the reforms was introduced to the parliament this week by shadow police minister Jack Batty. Members of parliament will begin to debate the bill in a fortnight. The President of the Police Association said on the radio in relation to this bill, 'Why put yourself in harm's way if courts and politicians will continue to allow violent and dangerous offenders to walk the streets?' It is worthy of consideration. When there is a crisis we see people running from a dangerous event: our police officers run towards it. When there is a challenging situation on our streets, it is our police officers who we expect to—and they do—respond, putting their own personal safety and wellbeing secondary to the safety and wellbeing of the community. Their families have sleepless nights multiple days every week waiting for their loved ones to come home, because you never know what you are going to get on a given day, and when there are loaded weapons potentially in the inventory, the location, the level of risk and danger for these serving officers is much greater than that of pretty much any other profession. We commemorate National Police Remembrance Day each year because police officers losing their lives in the line of duty is not just a theoretical possibility, it is something that has happened far too many times in South Australia's and Australia's history. That level of jeopardy that officers theoretically, potentially, confront, combined with the stated fact that we know there have been these serious cases that the courts have had to grapple with, and have failed to grapple with adequately in my view, it is clearly time for the parliament to step in and assist the courts with improved laws. In 2019 the former government introduced new laws, which were passed, but clearly the courts have not taken those laws into consideration in the way the parliament had intended. I am talking about the reforms to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which created an aggravated offence for assaulting a prescribed emergency services worker under section 20AA, with a maximum penalty of 15 years. This parliament took a stand in 2019 under the former Liberal government but on this occasion, certainly with the case I am talking about, the court has chosen not to go down that path. We believe it is time to up the ante, to ensure the courts have clear direction. The bill amends the Bail Act, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and the Sentencing Act to impose a presumption against bail for an applicant who is taken into custody in relation to an offence for assaulting a police officer, mandatory imprisonment of a period of no less than six months for the offence of assaulting a police officer on duty, and the removal of home detention and the suspension of imprisonment as sentencing options for the court. It is sad that this is needed but our police officers deserve protections, our police officers deserve to know that when they are serving the community we have their backs, and the community of South Australia will benefit in a very real sense from police officers having that surety as we seek to recruit extra police officers to make up for the shortfall in police officers, the vacancies that exist at the moment. It is very clear to me that this bill is worthy of support and, as the Police Association has urged, all members should support it; we should support it today. I commend the bill to the house. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Elizabeth Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:38): I move: That the debate be adjourned. The house divided on the motion: 23 15 2 Ayes	23 Noes	15 Majority	8 AYES Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Cregan, D.R. Dighton, A.E. Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) O'Hanlon, C.C. Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J. NOES Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S. Brock, G.G. Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pratt, P.K. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J. PAIRS Hughes, E.J. Hurn, A.M. Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.