SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (22:01): I move:

1. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the staffing, resourcing and efficiency of the South Australia Police (SAPOL) with particular reference to:

(a) resource utilisation;

(b) rural policing;

(c) the need for, and allocation of, minimum staffing levels;

(d) effectiveness of recruitment and retention of police personnel;

(e) recruitment and in service training resources and requirements;

(f) selection and promotion processes and policies;

(g) adequacy and standard of equipment;

(h) mechanisms for dealing with internal complaints;

(i) prosecution;

(j) the role of police in and the adequacy of crime prevention programs throughout South Australia; and

(k) other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being reported to the council.

4. Standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

The terms of reference of this motion are the same terms of reference we had for a select committee prior to the last election, which received a huge amount of material from SAPOL, the Police Association and other witnesses for which I thank and commend them. A handful of witnesses who provided some written information wanted to make an oral presentation to that committee; but, with the election coming upon us, they were unable to do so.

I have been contacted by a couple of those people seeking the re-establishment of the committee so that they can have an opportunity to discuss their particular issues with the committee. It is the intention of the opposition not to have a long, full-blown select committee process but maybe just a very short one to deal with the handful of people who wanted to come to the previous committee but who were unable to, and then for the committee to report properly—I think we had an interim report.

For the interest of members, I have been provided with a statement which, in the view of one of these people, details some ongoing bullying, victimisation, harassment and intimidation which has forced this person to work in an oppressive working environment. In particular, I draw the attention of members to a letter this person received from a senior officer. The letter states:

As a senior officer of SAPOL of senior rank to you, I direct that you are not to discuss or promote the issue that you raised outside of SAPOL in any form. Should you do so you may be subject to a breach of the code of conduct and police regulation. Any such incident would be referred for investigation.

I believe this means that the member of SAPOL was being directed not to speak to his member of parliament, perhaps his lawyer, SafeWork SA or even the Police Association. This person has every right to expect some forum in which to discuss the issues, so this select committee is probably the best way in which to do that.

I have read material this person sent to me. It highlights the incidents that have occurred over several years and it seems to indicate that some poor management skills existed in SAPOL at the time. However, collated information with which I have been provided seems to show that almost orchestrated actions have impacted greatly on this one member of SAPOL. The report poses serious questions about the integrity of senior officers and the method of some of the internal investigations. In my view, the complaints which have been made in this particular case have not been responded to in an appropriate way by SAPOL.

It is important to acknowledge that all members of SAPOL are hardworking officers, who deserve to be commended not discredited, especially within their own ranks. Even today I had the pleasure of being at a police graduation where 24 new graduates entered the police force. It was a great day for them and an important chapter in their lives, and I wish them well. We have to support them. Like staff members in any organisation, not just SAPOL, they need to be supported and adequately protected.

Given the terms of reference of the select committee, I should highlight the Productivity Commission figures about which I have asked a number of questions and which show that the government is falling short of achieving its target of more than 4,400 sworn police officers on the beat by 2010. Clearly, issues raised by this former SAPOL employee indicate that if there are problems with the organisation and they are not dealt with we will struggle to recruit more police officers.

The minister continues to refuse to clarify what he means by 'the number of police officers on the beat'. Nearly 20 per cent of SAPOL officers are non-operational; sworn officers are not out on the beat. Again, with 'recruitment and in-service training resources and requirements' for police as one of the terms of reference, it is important that, if a government sets out a target, it should achieve it. Clearly, this government seems—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Same target you had.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects, but, clearly, the government for some six years has been talking about 4,400 sworn officers on the beat; and, clearly, the government will not achieve it. In relation to recruiting techniques, SAPOL is now using YouTube to recruit police officers and it is reported that they are turning away applicants for unsubstantiated reasons. Recently, I spoke with a young man who had applied several times to join SAPOL. He has now been accepted in Queensland and Western Australia. Having met the young man, I am sure he will be a fine asset to whichever force he chooses to join.

I have doubts about the recruitment process being used to recruit police officers from the United Kingdom and, more importantly, to retain those recruits. We have heard that they are staying here for the minimum time and then either leaving the police service or going interstate to work in other police forces. The environment in which our front-line police officers are working is becoming increasingly dangerous and it is not being tackled with an adequate increase and improvement in current resources and resource initiatives. The Gang of 49 is proof that the intimidation of police officers is prevailing and in situations such as this they are almost helpless. Last month, The Australian reported that Generation Y is becoming increasingly violent, aggressive and fearless in taking on authority. It also reported that alcohol-fuelled violence is on the rise.

It is interesting to look, across a number of jurisdictions, at the increased resources that are being given to police. In fact, the Victorian police minister, Christina Nixon, said police had no choice but to take a more aggressive approach to unruly behaviour. I believe that this is also true of our police. Unfortunately, we are now finding situations where they need to be much more adequately resourced to be able to confront some of these individuals in our community. Only a couple of days ago, I noted that the police department in Perth had just released its digital in-vehicle tasking and dispatch information. All vehicles patrolling the Perth metropolitan area will now have access to the WAPOL database, as well as the databases of every other police jurisdiction through the national search facility.

In addition, the Western Australian government has begun to roll out tasers, protective vests, new pistols, anti-terrorist armoured vehicles and 20 new improved police stations. We know that our government has built a number of police stations but, certainly, there is a lot more work to be done. Queensland will also soon arm its frontline officers with tasers, but there is still no evidence that the minister here intends to do this. These initiatives are improving police safety and response times and arming them with better information when they attend a potential crime scene. These are examples of where this government is falling further behind national benchmarks on front-line police resources.

I have been contacted by a member of SAPOL who has been on WorkCover for a substantial period, who has received virtually no assistance from SAPOL in rehabilitating him so that he can return to operational duties. He sustained injuries from using a pistol and, rather than SAPOL reissuing him with an ergonomically suitable weapon, he was forced to continue using the pistol. Subsequently, this man was removed from front-line duties six years later and has sustained injuries from which he is unlikely to be fully rehabilitated. It seems totally unreasonable for someone who has tirelessly served for almost 14 years in the force not to be granted basic resources.

I have also heard of a number of other cases, but I will not discuss them now, because it is late. However, I think there is clear evidence that the previous select committee had some unfinished business, in particular, in relation to the handful of people who wished to finalise their written submissions, and I ask all members to support the reinstatement of the committee.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.

At 22:13 the council adjourned until Thursday 28 February 2008 at 11:00.