Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time South Australia Police South Australia Police The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council South Australia Police The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Police. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With your concurrence, sir, this the first time I have asked a question of the minister, and on the record I congratulate the minister on his appointment and I also congratulate the Leader of Government Business in this house on his promotion. I also congratulate the former leader of government business, particularly on her efforts in modernising the sitting hours of this house. It is just unfortunate that the executive of this government did not always appreciate loyalty amongst ministers and members of their government. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Can you get to your question? The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With that, I return to my explanation. The Weatherill government savagely cut occupational health and safety rights and entitlements to our committed South Australian police officers from 1 July last year—a savage right that one would have expected to always be protected and enshrined, particularly for our police officers, especially I would have thought, by a Labor government. However, that is not the situation and we have seen a committed and rightful campaign by the Police Association of South Australia on behalf of its members. Family First currently have a bill before the parliament and the police are different— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: This is not a second reading speech; it is a brief explanation. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The police are different to— The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order: I think it is a standing order in this place that when there is business before the house it is not to be referred to in questions. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: To complete my explanation— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —there is a point of difference between protecting police on their duty and others, and— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The honourable member has the right to ask his question in silence, just as the appropriate minister has the right to answer that question in silence, so please give them the respect they deserve. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank you, Mr President, for your protection. The police are different: they are the only ones who have to go to all incidents under their oath when they take office as a police officer. My question to the minister is: will the minister, as someone who understands workers' rights as well if not better than most in the cabinet, join with me and other colleagues who believe in righting a wrong, to fix this problem as a priority and reinstate to the police what they duly should have and do need as a matter of priority and urgency? The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS Legislative Council Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:23): Thank you to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for his question. I am not the relevant minister for return to work—I think that is a point worth making; however, I will make the following remarks. The return-to-work reforms that were passed by the parliament some time ago and came into effect last year were an important piece of economic reform that this government saw as critical to be able to improve the return-to-work levy that applies throughout the state of South Australia to many businesses. Those reforms and that legislation are something that this government stands by and is incredibly proud of. Under that new piece of legislation, there is a whole range of entitlements that are provided for to all South Australian employees, and that includes members of the South Australian police force. The South Australian public should be aware of the fact that South Australian police officers do have existing entitlements under the Return to Work Act. What the Police Association is doing is mounting a campaign, and they are to be commended for representing their members, arguing that police officers should be treated differently to the rest of the South Australian workforce. They argue, as the honourable member outlined, that police officers who are sworn officers should be treated differently because they have a whole range of responsibilities that ordinary South Australian workers do not have to contend with. I stated on my first day of being sworn in as the Minister for Police that that was an argument I was willing to listen to, and that remains the case. It is an argument I am now actively listening to. I have already met with the Police Association on more than one occasion, giving them the opportunity that they should be afforded by the Minister for Police, for them to be able to articulate their arguments and for the police minister to be able to examine the strength of those arguments, and that is a process that remains ongoing. If anything were to change on that front, I am sure that a minister responsible for return to work legislation, or changes or return-to-work reforms, being the gentleman in the other place, will have plenty to say about that in due course.