CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (PROTECTION FOR WORKING ANIMALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:51): I move:

That the message pertaining to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Protection for Working Animals) Amendment Bill 2013, which was placed on motion, be considered forthwith.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Is that seconded?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Seconded.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: No, it's not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, it is. It was tabled this morning and then we put it on motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): No, that was a different matter. I am not sure that the honourable member who seconded it is aware of what she was seconding.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member read the message when it was tabled this morning and is quite aware that she is seconding it.

The council divided on the motion:

The PRESIDENT: There being nine ayes and nine noes, I have to cast a vote with the government.

Motion thus carried.

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No.1.

First, this amendment as written may capture animals that are not intended to be covered by the definition. The government understands that this amendment is prompted by the use of a specific dog patrol by the local councils in Port Augusta and Ceduna. However, the definition is very wide and may have the effect of capturing many more dogs than is intended.

It is unknown how many of these animals would be captured by the amendment and what purposes those dogs are being used for. Such a wide definition may capture animals that do not require the extra protection of this bill or that could be inappropriate to include. Related to this point, dogs captured by the amendment may not have any particular qualifications. Whilst the dogs used by the councils in Port Augusta and Ceduna may be highly trained, dogs used by, or on behalf of, a council are not a group defined by a particular qualification in the same way that, say, guide dogs or police dogs are.

As the bill provides extra protection to working animals, it is important that the animals that are included have some sort of qualification that identifies them as trained working animals. Dogs such as those used by the council in Ceduna may even be the animals of subcontractors where, again, it is much more difficult to ensure quality control and to ensure the dogs are completely and adequately trained.

Secondly, some of the dogs captured by the amendment may not even work with a handler. The amendment specifies dogs guarding properties in a council area, which may well include guard dogs left on their own to guard property. Such dogs may not be under the control of a handler in the same way police dogs or guide dogs are, and we believe they are in quite a separate category and should not be captured by this legislation. The government feels that it is not appropriate to include these animals within the definition of 'working animal'. The government asks the council to reconsider its support for this amendment in light of these reasons and the reasons provided by the Attorney-General in the other place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would seek the indulgence of the council because, not being given due notice of this matter being brought on, it would be fair to say that my notes are not in the state that I would hope that they might have been, but that is the choice of a government that chooses not to cooperate with all members of the council. I would remind honourable members that this is an opposition amendment. We have the right to prepare our case to defend.

The government has been insisting that their top priority was surveillance devices, and their third priority was electoral reform. In fact, while the Leader of the Government was sledging me on a previous matter, I was actually discussing with the government how best to progress electoral reform. I am sorry that that will be impaired because my contribution tonight will be longer than it might otherwise because the government has chosen to bring this on without due notice. I would ask honourable members to reflect on their vote on this matter because every member has the opportunity from time to time to seek the cooperation of the council to facilitate more time for consideration of matters. I note, and the opposition notes, that we were not given that courtesy this evening.

On 11 September 2013 the Attorney-General introduced the Criminal Law Consolidation (Protection for Working Animals) Amendment Bill to create a new serious offence for causing death or serious harm to a working animal by an intentional act punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. On 13 November, the Legislative Council amended the bill to include council dogs. The intention of this amendment is to include canine patrols which consist of a highly trained dog and handler working together in Port Augusta, Ceduna and any other council area that they may be deployed in to enforce council by-laws. The work that these animals do is extremely similar to the work done by SAPOL and DCS.

Let me pause to digress because let us remember that this is a government that put forward the bill which wants to put in guide dogs along with police dogs and police working horses. They are telling us that guide dogs are more relevant to a police law enforcement animal protection initiative than council dogs that are specifically employed to enforce council by-laws. Honourable members will fully remember the issues in relation to the interaction between police and council workers in terms of council by-laws because it came up in the context of street preachers. We were told that police were fully authorised to enforce council by-laws and, in fact, that those by-laws were often complementary to their own duties to maintain public order, but that they often chose not to do so because council by-laws should be a focus of council officers.

So, while we had a situation in Adelaide where local police were extremely reluctant to enforce the council by-law in relation to street preachers, council officers had to be deployed and, of course, they needed to be given the resources, and that is what the Adelaide City Council did. Now in the Ceduna/Port Augusta context we have a very similar situation. We have a situation where a council has by-laws to do with use of the foreshore and the council area, and they have by-laws that they need to enforce. Quite rightly, South Australia Police says that it is not its primary responsibility to enforce council by-laws. If you put council by-laws in, you need to deploy council resources to enforce them. That is what the councils have done—democratically elected councils in Ceduna and Port Augusta have used their resources, and they have paid good ratepayers' money to engage canine patrols in their council areas to enforce council by-laws.

What this government is saying to us is that a bill focused on protecting law enforcement animals, which coincidentally includes guide dogs, has no need to include council dogs who are involved in a law enforcement task. Let's put it this way: if the councils are not allowed to use appropriate resources to enforce their by-laws it will fall back to the police and perhaps the very dogs that this act is designed to protect will come into harm's way. To be frank, I doubt if there is a police dog in Ceduna; I doubt if there is a police dog in Port Augusta.

The opposition is aware that a number of local councils operate security canine patrols, particularly in rural areas. I digress again to highlight the fact that, whilst I am aware of patrols in Ceduna and Port Augusta, I understand there has also been work with the K9 patrol people in relation to a patrol in Quorn. It is quite possible that these will become widespread, particularly as this government fails to deliver on its commitments to maintain police numbers.

Let me make it clear: we are not talking about private security firms being given the same authority as a law enforcement animal. Our amendment talks about a dog used by or on behalf of a council. In other words, it is not, shall we say, a roving dog: it is a dog used by or on behalf of the council. These patrols are authorised officers of the council supported by canines with the authority to enforce council by-laws. Their role includes the monitoring of sitting infrastructure against vandalism, to counter antisocial behaviour and to assist the police where possible.

The opposition finds it incomprehensible, given the similarities between the security canine patrols and other law enforcement animals, that the government is resistant to including them. Let me stress again, as I have already mentioned, these animals are involved in assisting the police where necessary. The logic of what the government is saying is that if a police dog is enforcing a council by-law it can get protection but if it is a council dog it cannot.

It was never the intention of the opposition to include dogs used by councils for guarding purposes. In that respect we can understand the government's response, and the opposition has already resolved to suggest to the council that we amend the motion that we have been asked to reconsider and that we delete all words after 'by-laws' and replace the comma with a full stop. In other words, we propose to the council that the truncated amendment be sent back to the House of Assembly; that is:

A dog used by or on behalf of a council (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1999) for the purpose of enforcing council by-laws.

The government may well have a point that, as drafted, it could be read to include animals that we had no intention of covering. Let me be clear: we never intended that a private security firm would be covered. We acknowledge the fact that the government accepted a Legislative Council amendment in the other place to remove the power to declare dogs by regulations, but it did not accept the council dogs amendment.

In his second reading summing up—this is the second reading summing up of the Attorney-General in relation to the bill, not his response to the amendment—the government's response was that the Attorney-General believed that the legislation could cover council dogs by regulation. There was no hint of a concern about the effect on these animals. It was only when it arrived in this place that these concerns started to be raised.

The government argued that it may capture a broad range of dogs used by or on behalf of councils. The Attorney-General was concerned that this amendment could capture guard dogs left on their own to guard property, and in that context the opposition submits the amendment in an alternative form.

The Attorney-General took the opportunity to reflect on the training of these dogs. My advice is that these dogs are highly trained; they are trained to a similar level to other trained dogs. Now, I doubt they are trained to the level of a police dog, I highly doubt that, but they are trained. I also ask members when they want to get excited about whether or not a dog is trained, no longer is it an animal welfare measure but it becomes some sort of cost recovery for training services.

The Hon. Tammy Franks quite rightly highlighted the lack of consistency between this legislation and other animal welfare provisions, but if the government is saying, 'No, that dog is not entitled to protection,' not because of the task they are being put to, not because they are being put in harm's way because of the duties human beings are expecting of them, but because humans have invested money in their training, I question the logic. After all, we do not protect public servants because we have invested training in them; we protect public servants because they are entitled to their rights. Likewise, I suggest that animal welfare legislation is not based on some sort of cost recovery motivation for training.

The element that came up more by way of interjection really was the assertion that using dogs to enforce council by-laws was somehow a racist suggestion. I ask the government to reflect. If they believe that a local government, established under a statute of this parliament, subject to codes of conduct laid down by this parliament and this government, is delivering a service which is racist, what is the government doing about it? These services have been in place for five or six years, I understand. What has the government done about it? I find it galling that we have accusations of racist controversy raised without substantiation, and I will address that in more detail in a moment.

In particular, who was it holding accountable for this alleged racist behaviour? The government has the power to hold councils accountable. If they are sincere in asserting that we should not extend this legislation because 'gee whiz, you are going to provide protection to dogs in a service which we regard as racist' what is the government doing? Where are the police protecting Aboriginal people in Ceduna and Port Augusta from these racist services from council? I ask the government to reflect on how their own words condemn them.

Before I start quoting the Attorney-General in his comments about the racist controversy, I question the way he presented it. Repeatedly he seemed to try to distance himself from it. Let me quote you one section. He said that he does not have:

any objective view one way or the other about these reports'—

and these are the reports of racism that he is about to quote—

but I am saying that these reports exist, they are on the public record, and we will be capturing the animals to which these reports refer if we proceed with this amendment.

He does that a couple of times through. If the government in response to opposition amendments, moved with sincerity in this place, wants to quote media reports and then wants to step back from them and say, 'I don't know if they are true or not but I still think that they are a good basis for the House of Assembly to reject the Legislative Council amendment,' I suggest that is very poor practice. I would have thought that the Attorney-General would have done us the courtesy of stepping behind the media reports and trying to establish whether or not on an objective view there were concerns raised.

I suggest to the Attorney-General that not only is it the responsibility of the Minister for Police to make sure that Aboriginal people in Ceduna and Port Augusta are not subject to racist services and not only is it the responsibility of the local government minister to make sure that councils under their responsibility are not delivering racist services, it also falls to the Attorney-General to protect the political and civil rights of all South Australians, including Aboriginal South Australians.

The Hon. Ian Hunter interposed in the debate and specifically raised concerns about these dogs being used in unfair and demeaning ways. I would have thought that in the context of this debate, rather than quoting old media reports, which the government is not even willing to stand by but merely wants to throw on the table, if the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs wants to come into this place and raise concerns about services being used in an unfair and demeaning way, it would actually be a courteous act to the council responsible for these services and to the service providers not to do just a general spray, a wide smear, but that the government would have the decency to identify what are the problems.

In particular, I highlight one of the media reports from which the government quoted. They quote Mr Neil Gillespie, who was then the director of the Aboriginal Legal Services in Adelaide. The Attorney-General, as is par for the course, stated:

I read his quote without saying that I necessarily endorse it or have any view one way or the other about it.

The quote goes on to say:

This is not South Africa in 1975, this is Australia in 2008 and I think that it is targeted at Aboriginal people. To bring in Gestapo-type guards is just worrying. Again, I repeat, this is a racist action by the Ceduna government.

So, in 2008, six years ago, this government was put on notice that the head of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement regarded racist action was being done by the Ceduna government. There is no mention by the Attorney-General of what action he or his predecessor took, no mention of what the Aboriginal affairs minister did, what the local government minister did. No, we have noted and filed away the accusation of racist behaviour, but we have not done anything about it.

Let me turn to a letter—and perhaps one of the reasons the Attorneys-General's predecessor had not acted on this was in a letter sent to his predecessor, Michael Atkinson, by Mr Neil Gillespie, the same man the Attorney-General quoted in the other place on a media report. The Attorney-General failed, apparently, to look at his own files to see that the same man had written to his predecessor in praise of the same service. The letter, dated 30 October 2009, is addressed to Michael Atkinson, Attorney-General of South Australia, 45 Pirie Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, and states:

Dear Mr Attorney,

The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement provides a broad range of services to Aboriginal South Australians. Through its work the ALRM has close contact with many agencies, including SA Police, and sees first-hand many instances of Aboriginal people at risk.

I first heard of the K9 security patrol operating in Ceduna as a District Council of Ceduna program. The Port Augusta City Council also commenced a trial of the program in late 2008. My immediate reaction to these patrols was one of suspicion. This was yet another security service employed by a local government that would disproportionately target Aboriginal people.

The thought of using dogs as part of a security service to administer the Local Government Act, and as part of strategy to protect council assets, seemed to me to be excessive and over the top. Over the last six months I have met with the mayor and/or the CEOs of both the councils and gained quite a good understanding of what this innovative program is about. In Port Augusta I have received advice from my staff and the community about the operation of the City Safe patrol and the work of the principal, Tony Edmonds.

Tony has gained a great deal of respect from Aboriginal people he deals with, and is a person who will sit down and communicate with people. This has particularly been the case with young persons and older persons who may be at risk from substance abuse.

The ALRM is currently working on developing a Memorandum of Understanding with both the Port Augusta council and the Ceduna councils that will see us working together more closely. I am aware that the City Safe patrol has achieved many positive outcomes as a result of a proactive approach.

In fact, the program is undertaking tasks that rightly should be provided by other agencies which are failing Aboriginal people. The patrol has developed good relations over the last 11 months and has earned the respect it has gained. I am very happy to provide this letter of support for funding.

Paying respect to the late Neil Gillespie, in 2008 he was highly sceptical about what he perceived might be a racist initiative. By October 2009, he was actually sending letters of support as the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

I do not know if the Attorney-General is aware of that letter—it was certainly written to his predecessor—but what he chose to do was table a media report (a) without any sense of counterbalance and (b) without any willingness even to stand by it. I suppose the Attorney-General's defence could be, 'I didn't actually say I agreed with it.' Well, do not table a media report in another place and not at least give the parliament the courtesy of the update which was provided to his predecessor (Michael Atkinson) on exactly the same issue.

On the next comment I want to make about one of the Attorney-General's media reports, unfortunately, because the government chose to bring this on without notice, I can only go from recollection; I do not have the documents with me. The next comment was in relation to the report in The Advertiser on 18 July 2011. The report in The Advertiser report is, according to the Attorney-General, headed 'Security guards accused of racism during Ceduna deaths inquest'. The article goes on to say:

Private security officers are removing Aboriginal people from the scenic foreshore at Ceduna because of their race, an inquest has heard.

If that were true, I would be very concerned. I would be asking: where is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs defending the rights of Aboriginal people? Where are the police stopping Aboriginal people from being harassed and moved on against the law? I would be asking: where is the local government minister, who should be holding the local government to account for deploying services within the law?

Within the time available to me, I took the next logical step: if there was an inquest, presumably there was a Coroner's report. I went and looked at the Coroner's report. I should just clarify what the Coroner's report was about: it was about an investigation into the three Aboriginal people in Ceduna who suffered from alcohol-related health issues, and it was a broadranging investigation into public intoxication and the services available.

The Coroner made a number of very significant recommendations in relation to intoxication services. I would have thought, considering it was issued in late 2011, that if the Coroner had had accusations of a racist service being made to him—in fact, it was the Deputy State Coroner, but still the presiding officer of the Coroner's Court in question—if the Deputy State Coroner who was presiding over that court felt that there should be an adverse comment in relation to a racist patrol, he would have put it in his report. I could not find a single reference to an adverse comment; in fact, I could not find any comment about the patrol in the report.

I would have thought that if the Attorney-General felt that this report were so concerning, he himself would have told us about the Coroner's report and what conclusions the Coroner drew. Again, I say the Attorney-General may repeatedly deny that he endorses the comments—the media reports that he throws around gaily in the House of Assembly—but by stating only part of the facts he is implicitly endorsing their assertions. The government should tell us whether they think that K9 is a racist service and what they are doing to close it down if they do. If they think it is a racist service, they have a duty to act. Racism is corrosive and the government should not play politics with these important values.

As a side comment in relation to the Coroner's report into the Ceduna deaths, I note that, whilst there was a response from the health services in relation to the initial Coroner's report, I could find no evidence of the progress report that was required of the health services—I should not say 'required': it might have been an undertaking by the services. We were told we would get an update in May 2013 about the services at Ceduna. I could not find a reference to that report. If the government is able to correct me, I would be delighted to think that this government was starting to focus on the real needs of Aboriginal people.

In my research, I was also able to find, shall we say, a third-party endorsement, not by another council but by another Aboriginal service. Let me quote an article published in Alice Springs News online. Again, if circumstances had been kinder, I might have been able to quote excerpts but I am afraid that will not be possible because the government called this on, with the support of the Greens, without any notice. The article was published in the Alice Springs News and it is entitled 'Council gets the drum on community harmony, Port Augusta style'. It is written by Kieran Finnane and is dated 26 June 2012. The new report is of the work of Craig Wilson of Craig Wilson Consultancy on the community harmony initiatives taken in Port Augusta. The article states:

Mr Wilson extolled the virtues of Port Augusta's City Safe Program, and particularly the contractor who runs it, Tony Edmonds, an 'extremely popular guy', who enjoys the strong support of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. Mr Edmonds sees his role as 'helping not hindering', said Mr Wilson, and has good 'infrastructure support', such as transport services and a sobering-up centre (no detox).

(In his report Mr Wilson notes the flexibility that Mr Edmonds' contractor status allows, including the possibility of informal action, such as buying someone a bus ticket or a hamburger. He notes that Mr Edmonds is a Pitjantjatjara speaker and is assisted by a multi-lingual Aboriginal man. The contract is worth $214,000 [per year] and is operated seven days a week, from 2pm to 2am. Two Alsatian dogs travel with Mr Edmonds. Mr Wilson reports that the 'suitably trained' dogs have not been used to date.)

Could I pause there and say that in what is a relatively long news report the dogs get one mention. This is not about a dog patrol. This is about council patrols supporting the enforcement of council by-laws in what seems to me to be a very holistic way. The government wants to somehow try to fight against the possibility of council dogs getting additional protection by doing a racist slur on not only the service provider, Mr Edmonds (who, according to this report, is a very sensitive man), but also the council that engages them.

For those members who might chuckle, I do not know many racist people who go to the trouble of actually learning the language of one of the services they are going to serve. I admit I do not know a single word of Pitjantjatjara. I know the member for Morphett in the other place does, and that is to his credit. The member for Morphett is not racist. The fact that Mr Edmonds has gone to the trouble of learning the language of one of our Indigenous nations, I believe, is to his credit and would be good evidence that I would like to put before a court that argues against this government's assertion that he and his service are racist. Let me continue to read the Alice Springs News report:

Councillor Jade Kudrenko asked how the City Safe program differed from the night patrol program operating in Alice Springs. Mr Wilson said patrolling was only one aspect of the program. Its access to other programs is crucial. For example, there is a day care centre (a substance, including tobacco, rehab centre, operated by the SA Government) where people can get free breakfast, cheap lunch, shower, wash their clothes and enjoy recreational activities, such as painting, fishing, table tennis.

In response to a specific question the consultant again discounts the relevance of the dog. The service is seen in the context of the services in the community as a whole. I continue to read from the article:

Mr Wilson said City Safe was set up by the council with a view to protect council property, but the contractor takes 'a more human perspective': he'll do 'everything possible' to avoid police involvement in the situations he deals with.

As shadow attorney-general I am acutely aware of the problems that Aboriginal communities have in terms of their interaction with the police. That is not an indication of racism on the part of the police, it is part and parcel of the fact that Aboriginal people experience social and economic indicators that are significantly lower than other South Australians. They have very poor health outcomes, poor education outcomes, and so forth.

Here we have a contractor who apparently was set up with a view to protect council property and we are told that he is taking a human approach and doing everything possible to avoid police involvement. I would have thought that a government that was trying to improve justice outcomes for Aboriginal people would actually see the value of working cooperatively with a service on the basis of an independent report by a consultant in Aboriginal services reporting not to the South Australian government—or for that matter the South Australian opposition—but to an Alice Springs-based service in terms of the experience of another council. The consultant said:

But this approach is 'a little easier' in Port Augusta because of its smaller population; it's possible to deal with issues 'on a more personal level'.

Mr Wilson discussed concerns about the displacement from public spaces to domestic of the issues arising from excessive drinking.

He says reviews of the dry zone in Port Augusta have not established 'quantitative data', but there is 'qualitative data' to suggest that this is what happens to an extent.

He says the community view is that moves to address the 'underlying problems' should be strengthened rather than the dry zone be abandoned.

The comment by the independent consultant reporting to an Alice Springs-based organisation is to highlight yet again a point where this government could well have been forced to address this issue. Dry zones are renewed on a one-year basis, two-year basis and three-year basis—depending on how they are progressed—and I am sure the dry zone in Port Augusta has been reviewed since 2008. If this government thought that the council in Port Augusta and Ceduna were using a racist service to prop up their dry zone, I presume that that issue would have come out in their adequate review of the dry zone proposal and it would have been dealt with.

You would expect that, if the government truly believed that a council under its responsibilities was establishing a racist program, they would have asked for the documents that the council produced to justify the program. Sure enough it did not take long to find—even the opposition could find it—and on 14 March 2009 there was a report to council and the subject was Security Patrol Evaluation. Not surprisingly the paper starts with an element of background on the program:

In July 2008, council endorsed an investigation into the action of a city-wide security patrol as part of the City Safe strategy. Council also resolved to undertake community consultation prior to implementing the patrol. A copy of the original report is attached for members' information (attachment 1). In November 2008, council resolved to engage VS Australia Security Services for a period of three months to conduct a security patrol assisted by canines.

They are dogs for those who need to have the link.

The trial commenced on 26 December 2008 and will conclude on Tuesday 21 April 2009.

Let's look at the section in the paper about SAPOL. The suggestion was made in earlier debates by the government that somehow this was getting in the way of SAPOL and that SAPOL did not welcome it. Let me quote from the paper to the council. It states:

The relationship with SAPOL and the security patrol has been very positive. SAPOL officers have regularly attended meetings of the working party and provided an insight into operational matters, including police and the patrol. The intent of the security patrol was to assist police at arm's length where possible and to provide extra sets of eyes for police. This has worked well.

Then there is a section, attachment 5, which deals with crime stats. Section 4.4, on page 2, states:

The reality is that SAPOL is responsible for the control of crime and it is therefore SAPOL that deserves all the credit for the excellent outcomes in terms of the reduction in crime numbers. The security patrol were no doubt assisted but should not be considered as a major factor in crime reduction. Having said that, it is very pleasing that while the patrol was operating there has been a reduction trend in crime statistics.

That comment is not surprising. As the Alice Springs news report highlighted, these are not primarily enforcement officers. The member for Stuart was commenting to me that his understanding is that the dogs are not often out of the van. We heard in the Alice Springs report how little the dogs were mentioned. In fact, in relation to the Alice Springs report, Tony Edmonds effectively acts as a facilitator, linking people in public places with appropriate services.

I noticed that there was not anybody from Families SA or DCSI or other state government services out there facilitating linkages. To the government's credit, both the Alice Spring's news report and the council report do talk about state government services. But often it is not a matter of establishing the service here and waiting for people to come to you.

The success of programs such as the mobile assistance patrol have highlighted how important it is to have appropriate bridges. By the report of an independent consultant in Alice Springs, Mr Edmonds and his patrol have provided an appropriate bridge to state government services. If the government thinks that it is racist for a council-funded resource to make linkages between Aboriginal South Australians and state government services, again I ask: what have you done to close them down?

Let's go back to the council report because, not surprisingly, it talks about community feedback. Under section 5—Community feedback, 5.1 states:

As members will be aware, council was initially accused of Gestapo-style tactics when it considered introducing the security patrol. There are also claims of disproportionately targeting Aboriginal persons, draconian measures, etc. The feedback for the patrol has been unbelievably positive, far in excess of what could have reasonably been expected; for example, the petition was signed by over 800 persons, including Aboriginal elders.

There were two letters from members of the community, and I will quote both the petition and one of the letters from the community:

A transcript from an interview by Kieran Weir on ABC Radio with Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) CEO, Neil Gillespie, is attached for members' information. As members would recall, Mr Gillespie was very much opposed to the trials prior to their introduction. As can be seen, Mr Gillespie now provides a great deal of in-principle support and, although not fully appreciating what is happening locally within the trial, has offered the opportunity for council to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the ALRM.

The manner in which the security patrol officers have dealt with people offending, particularly the dry areas legislation, has been one of the things that has made this patrol different. They have actually sat down with people and communicated to identify their needs and issues. Of course, the evidence for this is somewhat anecdotal. It is certainly a fact, though, and something I can testify to having seen at first hand.

Just to clarify that, the paper is signed by council officer M.J. Dunneman.

In section 5.5, which continues in the community feedback section, there have been some negative comments and these were expected. These comments can in most cases be explained in context—for example, young PAYS bus clients feeling watched by the patrol at 1:30 in the morning. This aspect of the trial was always going to be seen as negative by some but most likely a positive by the majority. That is the community feedback section. That section referred to a letter and I will quote from the letter that was referred to in the council report:

Dear Tony, Walter and our four-legged canine friends,

Thank you so much for the support you have given us not only in our direct local community but in keeping our Westside shore line clear of the gangs of heavy drinkers and violence so that we as residents and the local families can come here on those very hot weekends to use the public facilities to cook meals or picnic and swim to cool off without fear for our safety.

Despite the odd negative objection from a minor two or three council members, I and our surrounding neighbours and the community as a whole welcome you both with your team of canines with open arms. You and your team's efforts over these last few months have been noted, profoundly felt and our safety guaranteed, success rate being 99 per cent. 99.9 is the best decision the council has given to Port Augusta. Being one of your biggest supporters here in Port Augusta, I believe the service you and your team provide to the community and in conjunction to supporting our local police department is a necessity.

We as a small group are also proud to say we have been witness to your actions as a team in crime prevention before it got out of control on many occasions especially in hotspot areas, not to mention that locals of all walks of life just love seeing your friendly smiles and mannerisms about the community, especially our local kids. To capture their admiration is a gift. Once again, thank you, your positive interaction is a blessing.

That is not really surprising. In so many contexts, animals provide a bridge to positive interactions with the wider community.

Police dogs are highly trained and, in that sense, quite forceful tools in the hands of a police officer, but they can also be disarming vehicles by which police can break down barriers with the wider community. That is true of both dogs and horses, so it is not surprising that a council-funded law enforcement service, which also uses dogs, might also find that, as that letter testified, it broke down barriers.

One of the points that has been made to me by the member for Stuart—a very good local member—is that suggestions that this service is racist are extremely disrespectful to the wider Port Augusta community. The wider Port Augusta community has a high proportion of residents who are Aboriginal and that community, as a whole, through their democratically-elected government and within the laws of the state, has engaged a resource to try to manage a social problem.

It is not surprising that, if you like, there would be elements of the Port Augusta Aboriginal community who would benefit from the deployment of the patrol and that there are some members of the community, particularly those who have problems with alcohol and consume it in public contexts who might come in contact with the K9 patrol and may be negative towards it.

That is not surprising, but I suggest that those who want to suggest that it is a white versus black issue need to be very careful that we are not overly simplifying the situation and painting some picture that all the residents of Port Augusta who are benefiting from a safer public space environment are white. The fact of the matter is that there is a very well-established and thriving Aboriginal community in Port Augusta, and let me remind you that the council report itself said that there were 800 people who signed a petition, including Aboriginal elders.

My understanding is that there may well be different views, and it may well be that Aboriginal advocates now or past might have a different view. Let's remember that Neil Gillespie had a view in 2008 and that by 2009 he had a different view. It may well be that members in this debate will offer another view, whether from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement or others.

I would remind this council that this is a democratically elected council delivering a council service to enforce council by-laws; that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, with all due respect, whether its view is the same or different, is not the government of Ceduna or Port Augusta; and that it does not have the authority to speak for Aboriginal people in Port Augusta any more than it is some form of modern ATSIC.

The fact of the matter is that if the government, if the ALRM, or if any other service, believes that this service is racist, I would like to know what they are doing about it. I would like to know what the government has done, particularly what ministers have done, and particularly minister Hunter, considering that he raised the issues in this parliament.

To go back to the amendment, I should check with the Clerk whether I need to undertake any more formalities to progress this. I might interpose to have those consultations and seek clarification, Mr Chair, as to whether I have done what I need to do to move the amendment in another form.

The CHAIR: Do you still need the semicolon at 'or'?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Chair. I move an amendment to the amendment:

Delete ', conducting security patrols or protecting or guarding property in the council area'

What that does is remove any suggestion that we are talking about private security dogs, that we are talking about council dogs working to protect council areas; we are focusing specifically on a dog used by or on behalf of a council within the meaning of the Local Government Act for the purpose of enforcing council by-laws. This parliament will have the opportunity through by-laws for Port Augusta, Ceduna, Quorn—for everywhere else that wants to put by-laws in place—to consider the impact on the maintenance of public order.

The Hon. John Darley, with me, has the privilege of serving on the Legislative Review Committee, as does the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars. The Legislative Review Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously to make sure that the rights of South Australians are protected in terms of the imposition of council by-laws. Both those members will remember the recent debate about whether or not the Adelaide City Council should be allowed to have a by-law which prohibits adults from participating in children's playgrounds. Quite rightly, the committee raised concerns about that.

We were doubly concerned when we understood that it seemed to be the council taking upon itself the role that was more appropriately undertaken by police. Let's remember that these by-laws that are being enforced are not just the council's flights of fancy. We can look at them as they are being put in and consider whether or not they are racist, whether or not they are an appropriate oversight, if you like, of public order.

This parliament has the opportunity to check the by-laws. We also have the opportunity to hold this government and, in this chamber, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the minister for local government, responsible. As the Hon. John Dawkins would say, this is probably one of the few issues for which we can get the minister for local government accountable because these two councils happen to be regional councils, and this minister asserts that she is not the minister for local government: she is only the minister for rural local government.

Let me stress again that, with the shortened amendment, which the opposition now proposes, we have the opportunity to focus on the enforcement of law, not the protection of property. The police could be deployed for this task. They may prefer for it to be taken by council authorised officers. In those circumstances, we think it is appropriate that those dogs be recognised in the legislation.

If the government thinks the service is racist, then they should take appropriate action to close it down, dealing with both the service provider and the council that engages them. I urge the committee to prefer the amendment of the Legislative Council in an amended form and offer that to the House of Assembly for its consideration.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to support the government's rejection of the opposition's amendment. I note that the debate has been much more fulsome this time and that we have had a lot more information about what we were voting on when we voted to include this particular category of animals within what is colloquially known as Koda's Law. I note that as a council we decided that there was no way to add additional animals by way of delegated legislation. That has been done and dusted, although I disagree with that decision. I certainly agree more and more firmly with the words of the Hon. Kelly Vincent, who was widely reported as being critical of this legislation overall.

I reiterate: this was not a well-consulted bill. This was a bill that was rushed through this place, and these are the outcomes. No hearing dogs are included in this bill, and we have no customs dogs, no military dogs, and a range of other categories of animals that could have been quite rightly included potentially, but certainly we do not have the forum or the capacity to debate the merits. What we are debating now is the merits of this particular category of animal that was sought to be included in the legislation by the opposition. The Greens opposed the inclusion of these animals the last time we had this debate, and we continue to oppose the inclusion of these animals.

The K9 security patrols in Ceduna are well known. Over the last six-plus years of their existence, they have been most controversial. I note that the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned the article that was in Adelaidenow on 18 July 2011, entitled 'Security guards accused of racism during Ceduna deaths inquest'. I note that he did not read all of that article, and I certainly note that he also questioned what the government entities are doing about this.

That article covered the inquest into a series of deaths just in and around a place called 'town camp' just outside Ceduna that occurred between 2004 and 2009. Anyone who is familiar with Aboriginal affairs will be well acquainted with the outcomes and the recommendations of that inquest, and the need for rehabilitation and other programs is quite strongly there in the recommendations.

I note that the article referred to the evidence given by Housing SA regional manager Irene Adair, who said that she had a great deal of concern that while town camp could offer safe shelter and food, other services, such as detox and ongoing rehabilitation, were not available locally. She also thinks, the article goes on to quote, that there should be more social or culturally-based programs to help engage with the vulnerable and transient.

In questioning and response to Yalata lawyer, Chris Charles (who I note is also associated with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movements, the ALRM), when he asked her if she was aware of the controversial dog security patrols called K9 moving people on in Ceduna from the foreshore or the main street either for liquor-related or other council-related offences, she agreed that she had heard they were being taken away from those areas to binge drinking areas outside the town. She stated, 'If I chose to be down the foreshore and sit on a park bench or lie on the grass I'm unlikely to be moved on. It is overly racist.' I assume that Ms Adare is white—with those words.

I also respond to the assertions that this is not a racist action and the strangely circular argument put up by the Hon. Stephen Wade who did not provide very much evidence or information in originally moving these amendments to this council, in that he states that there have been no claims of racism. I draw his attention to the words of the then mayor, Joy Baluch, reported both in the NT News and the Courier-Mail on 5 April 2011. This is what her response would be to a situation that we had here in the Adelaide City Council, in this particular part of the state, where the Yuendumu people from the Northern Territory set up a tent camp in the south parklands of Adelaide. Port Augusta mayor, the late Joy Baluch, threatened the possible illegal campers with her dog squad. She said:

They will not camp illegally in my city...we have got the police, we have got a dog squad and I would arrange merry hell.

Anybody that comes and camps illegally on the foreshore or anywhere else in Port Augusta, they would be moved on, I would not tolerate such stupidity.

I do not see those words being uttered about white Australians in this country.

With that, I do not believe that we have had a standard which we can accept where this particular category of animals deserves to be included in this very narrow legislation on a par with police dogs. They are controversial, they have long been controversial, and while the Hon. Stephen Wade read out letters from the late Neil Gillespie—who I note was not the director of the ALRM but indeed the CEO—I have certainly had many conversations over the years with Neil Gillespie about these particular issues. However, I had a conversation today with the current CEO, Cheryl Axelby, and she said she could not believe that these particular dogs were being considered on a par to be included in Koda's law. She said that that would not be something that she would personally support.

I do not have an official statement from the ALRM but I am sure that I could probably get one. I note that she said that these security patrols are indeed affecting Aboriginal people quite demonstrably, with one particular person incurring over $15,000 worth of fines as a result of these patrols. I do not see white people incurring $15,000 worth of fines simply for loitering and being in public places in this state. With that, I do not believe that these dogs are worthy of special consideration under our laws in the same way that Koda's law seeks to treat police dogs and especially as we have rejected hearing dogs, Customs dogs, military dogs and a range of other animals. I do not believe that you have met the burden of proof required to give these particular animals due consideration above those categories we have rejected.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It was a noble filibustering effort from the Hon. Mr Wade but nothing can really hide what the intent is of these particular dogs under discussion. We learnt from the Hon. Mr Wade that in fact they spend most of their time in vans and that they are actually involved in community building. It appears that the Alsatians must have been replaced, or the German shepherds replaced, with a litter of golden retriever puppies that are out there helping in the community, making connections and helping build spirit. We know that is not what they are for. They are guard dogs and they are there to enforce laws by intimidating people.

I do not wish to engage in whether or not it is racist, whether that word is appropriate, whether or not one assumes that there is not a belief that Aboriginals are inferior or not equal in the way the policy is pursued, but certainly there is a target group. We all know that and we are kidding ourselves if we try to pretend that this is just about keeping public order in Ceduna and Port Augusta; it is nothing to do with Aboriginal populations. I am not saying that it is racist, but to say that there is not a target group here, that there is not a particular group of people who are the focus of this policy, who are the people whom the policy is intended to work against, I just cannot see that that position is sustainable.

The Hon. Mr Wade's amendment talks about councils and on behalf of councils, which means that private providers and contractors could well be the ones operating these dogs in various places. If we really need to ask ourselves whether special protection should be afforded to these dogs in particular, let us just assume that the Adelaide City Council decided to enforce their street preacher laws by sending down a couple of guards from a private security firm towing German shepherds or Dobermans.

Or let us assume that the Adelaide City Council or the Walkerville council decided a park was particularly precious. They did not want people trespassing through it and so they had patrols with guard dogs from a private security company. It would never be accepted and I have no doubt the Hon. Mr Wade would be amongst the first to protest such a restriction on people's civil liberties. With those words, I oppose the Hon. Mr Wade's attempt to extend protection for working dogs to these security or law enforcement dogs run by other than the police.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I was not going to weigh into this, and the Hon. Tammy Franks put the Greens' position very well, but I have been listening to the debate and listening to the proposed amendment that the Hon. Stephen Wade seeks to make, where he proposes to limit the definition of working animal to a dog that is used by or on behalf of a council for the purpose of enforcing council by-laws, and given that there was a fair bit of mention of a number of councils that may already use dogs, but that this proposed amendment is not limited to those particular councils, I thought I would just quickly run off a copy of the District Council of Ceduna by-laws. If I look at council's by-law No. 3, it says:

No person shall without permission on any local government land…promote, organise or participate in any organised athletic sport…fly any model aircraft or operate any power model boat from or on any local government land…sing, busk or play any recording or musical instrument for the purposes of, or so as to appear to be for the purposes of, entertaining other persons, whether or not receiving money…

You are not allowed to convey any advertising, religious or other message to any bystander, passer-by or person, and you are not allowed to conduct or participate in a marriage ceremony.

Now, no-one is suggesting that the dogs are out there trying to stop unauthorised weddings on council land, but we do need to legislate in a way that is sensible and does not have unintended consequences. Even with the proposed amendment by the Hon. Stephen Wade limiting the definition of working animal to one that is enforcing council by-laws, council by-laws cover a vast range of activities, most of which, we would all agree, are inappropriate to be enforced through the use of guard dogs. That just adds emphasis to what my colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks, was saying. This is inappropriate, and even as amended it is still an inappropriate amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member obviously has not heard me sing. It would be worth bringing the dogs out for, let me tell you. Just very briefly, I rise to speak to the amended amendment and I do not believe that the changes make any difference to the issues that I have raised in relation to why we are not able support the original amendment. The changes still do not reassure us how many animals are going to be captured by the amendment and for what purposes these dogs are going to be used. The Hon. Mark Parnell made some interesting observations about what potential the dogs could be used for.

It is still a wide definition; in fact, it is even wider and may capture animals that do not require and do not warrant the extra protection. As I have stated, it is important that animals that are included have some sort of qualification that identifies them as trained working animals. The amended amendment does not do that either. We are not able to support this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, given the hour, members would be well aware that Dignity for Disability originally supported the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment. Given some further consideration, I find myself in a position where we are no longer able to do that and there are a few points that I would like to take up to put forward my reasoning.

Concerns have been raised about the usage of these dogs. There is some debate about whether they are carrying out duties that are acceptable or truly noble. To my mind, it makes sense that while we are having that debate, do not put the protection for those dogs in legislation. Let's have that debate, let's sort out whether or not it is appropriate to use these dogs and, if we find that it is, we can put it in legislation but if it is not then we should by no means protect that particular usage of animals in legislation. I think there is a debate to be had but I would be very cautious about protecting that particular usage of a working animal in legislation while that debate is ongoing.

More broadly I would like to offer some brief, and in some ways repeated, comment on this bill in general. As members are well aware, Dignity for Disability has a very strong position on this bill. We are the only party that has stood up and called this bill for what it is—a distraction tactic from many of the important issues we currently do not have already covered in existing legislation. We do not have appropriate legislation to deal with people with disabilities in court. We do not apparently have time to talk about appropriate treatment and support for people with borderline personality disorder and many other maligned illnesses, I might add, but apparently we have the time to do this. What we do not have, even within this bill, is adequate consideration of the rights of many people with disabilities.

As members before me have pointed out, we do not have protection for hearing dogs. We do not have protection for autism assistance dogs or assistance for people with other behavioural issues, and we do not have an answer as to why guide dogs are any different to those dogs. So, this is a rushed piece of legislation, it is ill thought out, it is ill considered, and I am willing to be the only member of parliament and call this bill for what it is. I am saddened that I will be the only one doing that, but I am happy to. Having said that, I am happy to accept that it is the will of the council to pass this piece of legislation and I am happy to help to amend it to make it perhaps a little less ill thought out. I will be supporting the other members in rejecting the Hon. Mr Wade's move to support these animals at this time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank members for their contribution, particularly the Hon. Kelly Vincent. I want to correct a couple of things on the record but I do not want to prolong the debate. I could be wrong but I thought the Hon. Tammy Franks was suggesting that I was selectively quoting from a report of The Advertiser of 18 July 2011. I reject that assertion; all I was doing was quoting what the Attorney-General himself quoted. If it was a selective quote, it was a selective quote of the Attorney-General.

In relation to her comments regarding Joy Baluch, the point I would make there is that the Hon. Joy Baluch was talking about deploying police as much as the K9 patrol. If the honourable member is really suggesting that—

An honourable member: The late Joy Baluch.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, the late Joy Baluch—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I thought that the report also referred to the police, so if the Hon. Tammy Franks thinks that the police are subject to the direction of the Mayor of Port Augusta, then she should be just as worried about the police force as she should be about the K9s. I note that she was only able to offer us a comment from the ALRM's CEO personally and her comment about the level of fines in Ceduna—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, if I could maintain the call that would be helpful.

The CHAIR: I'm listening to you.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually thank the honourable member for raising the issue of expiation fines because that is specifically another example of the failure of this government to actually deal with issues that impact on Aboriginal people. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might think that it somehow adds to his glow by being able to stand up and accuse the Ceduna council of being racist, but what is he doing about the tens of thousands of expiation fines that Aboriginal people have been subject to? I actually specifically reject the assertion by Tony Edmonds.

The fact is that the police and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement are concerned about the lack of options that are available to police officers in that context. Here we have a government which wants to smear a council and a service provider, which is failing to provide tangible responses to Aboriginal justice issues in these communities, such that Aboriginal people are carrying significant burdens in terms of expiation fines, and which is trying to, if you like, redeem some sense of moral outrage by criticising a council service which at least is trying to do something. I do not see any state government officers down there on the foreshore trying to link Aboriginal people to state government services.

I accept that the votes will not be here tonight for the amendment, but I am duty bound to divide on the issue because we did divide before and members need to indicate their change of heart. In that regard I will be very interested to watch the behaviour of this parliament, this government, and whatever governments might be into the future, in their response not only to this patrol.

This patrol has become a symbol within this council tonight of endemic justice issues for Aboriginal people and people might get a warm inner glow by attacking council's best efforts to deal with tangible real issues faced by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents, but let us see what they do. Let us see what they do about expiation fines. Let us see what they do about overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in our prisons. I believe that this government has severely failed Aboriginal people over a decade. The Aboriginal incarceration rates alone show that.

If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Attorney-General like coming in here and throwing a few media reports on the table to slur a council and its service provider, so be it. This opposition wants to stay practical. We hope that in government we will provide a practical government that will not be replete with symbolic statements about Aboriginal rights. What we hope to be is a government which actually provides tangible outcomes to Aboriginal people on the ground.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.