SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway:

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.

(Continued from 27 February 2008. Page 1885.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (22:31): I indicate Democrat support for this amendment. The original select committee with identical terms of reference was established in 2003 by my former colleague, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. It was a very effective select committee.

The PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Were you a member, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT: Chairman.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: That is probably why it was so effective. As I said, the committee was effective and, in a media release of the Hon. Ian Gilfillan dated 10 November 2003, he said:

'At last the government has heeded the call of the Democrats that more police will be far more effective than the constant beating of the hollow drum of "tougher penalties" ', said Ian Gilfillan, spokesperson for Police, Law and Justice, in response to Minister Foley today. Mr Gilfillan was commenting on the Minister's statement that recruitment is to commence for an additional 200 police officers and eight public servants for SAPOL. 'This is a clear and welcome response to the Democrat Select Committee which is pressing for adequate police resources in South Australia'.

I met the now retired head of the police union, Peter Alexander, I think, at the beginning of last year. He came to see me about police numbers and was talking about the increase that occurred at that point. He gave credit to the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and this select committee for being able to create the publicity that forced the government into that move.

The committee reported on 30 November 2005. It was an interim report, and it was basically a one-page statement that allowed the members to say, 'We've heard lots of evidence and we're tabling the evidence before parliament is prorogued.' But they made no recommendations. In a sense, there is now some unfinished housework to do in association with this committee, including some people who wanted to appear before it then who still want that opportunity.

I draw to the attention of the Hon. David Ridgway, so that his new committee does not make the same mistake, that the introduction states, 'On 26 March 2003 the Legislative Council appointed a select committee', and so on. It was not on 26 March 2003; that was the date on which the Hon. Ian Gilfillan moved his motion. The motion was passed in April of 2003. So, when this new committee reports, the Hon. Mr Ridgway can make sure that the history is correct. The former committee was highly effective and, because there is some unfinished business associated with it, I indicate Democrat support for its re-implementation.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (22:35): I advise the chamber that the government opposes this motion.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, in 2003; it is now 2008. Notwithstanding the good work you did, Mr President, as the chair of that committee, we really have to ask why we need a select committee with identical terms of reference. I understand that the Legislative Council has a love affair with select committees: it cannot have enough. No matter how many we have, it just is not enough for this council. So, I will not bother wasting the time of the council by dividing, because I know it would be futile. This must be one of the few parliaments in the world with 22 members that has more than a dozen, I think it is, standing committees and, with all these select committees on top of that that, we have more committees than we have members, which is a fairly unique position.

I just want to make the point that, if this select committee is established, we will be taking police officers from the front line—from their job of catching criminals—so that they can prepare submissions and responses to matters that are raised during the life of this committee. The question is: is there really anything so serious within our police force today that such a committee that will take police off the front line is needed?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I guess that makes the point that members in this place believe that this parliament is essentially for their own entertainment and is something to keep them busy. Perhaps they do not do enough.

The point is that the terms of reference of this committee are essentially the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. He is best placed to determine what type of equipment is used by his officers and where police resources are placed. These matters have traditionally and appropriately been the domain of senior police, who are in the best position to make such decisions. Indeed, it is constitutionally inappropriate for parliament to interfere in the executive functions of the Commissioner of Police and to interfere in his operational responsibilities. This parliament passed the Police Act 1989, and part 2, section 6 of that act provides:

Subject to this act and any written directions of the minister, the Commissioner [that is, the Commissioner of Police] is responsible for the control and management of SA Police.

That provision of the act is quite clearly laid out to ensure that there is no political interference in the operation and management of the South Australian police force. SAPOL is not like other government departments, and that is why the act is quite clear—and tradition and convention quite clearly indicates—that, unlike other public servants, the Commissioner cannot be directed, other than by any written directions, which have to be published. It is not like the situation with other public servants, and there are good reasons for that. As I have said, there is a long tradition for that.

This government has full confidence in the Commissioner of Police and his management of the police force. We have given the South Australian police force record resources; every year its funding has gone up well in excess of the CPI. It is the one government department that not only has not been touched by budget cuts but has been given significant resources, not the least of which is the fact that, by the completion of the term of this government, it will have something like 600 extra sworn police officers.

Essentially, this proposal can be seen only as an attack on the Commissioner of Police and the police department's independence. After all, it is the Police Commissioner who has the legal responsibility under the act to control and manage the police of this state.

This government has confidence in our police force, and one can only suspect that members opposite do not have confidence in the police. Why else would we be continuing this committee, which essentially has the same terms of reference as a committee established five years ago? For those reasons, the government opposes the committee but, as I said, we accept that this Legislative Council has an irresistible urge to establish more committees.

We will provide a member for the committee. Obviously, a lot of other members in this place have very little to do with their time. I hope that, at least as a result of this, they learn something about our police. I hope they become aware of the fact that our police force has never been better resourced than it is at the moment and that it does a great job in protecting the community of this state.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (22:41): I thank the Hon. Sandra Kanck for her support. I will make a couple of quick comments, because I realise that we have other business to move on to.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Very important business.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Very important business. It is interesting that the minister really has not listened to what I said when I initially moved the motion—and the Hon. Sandra Kanck also alluded to this: it is really just to complete the business of that particular select committee that met before the last election. There is a handful of people who were denied an opportunity to give some oral evidence.

I have spoken to the Police Association, which made a very comprehensive submission at the last select committee meeting, which you chaired, Mr President. Neither I nor other committee members expect the association to make any submission at all. I spoke to both the retiring president and the new president of the association about the matter when this motion was moved. I have also mentioned it to the commissioner in an off-the-record situation when I have met with him at graduations. I explained that this is not about a full-blown inquiry about the police force; it is about letting the four or five people, who feel as though they have missed the opportunity, give oral evidence to the committee.

The minister talks about the resourcing of the police force. I raised this issue the other day and people laughed: it is interesting to note that South Australian police officers are not issued with their own wet weather gear; they have to share it. So, if you have police on a shift in wet weather, they go back to their station and take off their wet gear, which officers on the next shift then have to put on. They are not issued with their own wet weather gear.

It is interesting that the minister says that they have never been resourced to a greater level. It makes me laugh to think that something as simple as a raincoat cannot be issued to our police officers. Those sorts of things are in the submission from the Police Association as basic entitlements and requirements for equipping South Australian police officers. Mr President, you might laugh, but I bet you did not like shearing wet sheep.

I think it indicates the way in which some of the issues are examined by this government. It likes to talk about its contribution to resourcing police officers, but here we are discussing something as simple as a raincoat for officers, probably costing half a million dollars. Maybe it would cost $800,000 to equip all of our police officers with their own wet weather gear, which would belong to them and which they would look after. I am sure we would find that the wet weather gear would last much longer if it were issued to the police officers themselves to look after and care for as if it were their own, rather than something that is just used on a rotational basis.

There was some evidence in the United Kingdom to show that, where police officers are issued with their own equipment rather than stuff that is left at the station, it lasts much longer and actually saves the government a significant amount of money. However, I will not go on any longer. I thank members for their contribution, and urge all members to support re-establishment of the select committee.

Motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons A. Bressington, J.A. Darley, D.W. Ridgway, T.J. Stephens and R.P. Wortley; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 23 July 2008.