Crime Statistics

The Hon. J.S. LEE (14:38): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about crime statistics.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: A number of constituents have raised safety concerns with me recently. Research conducted on the SAPOL website found that offences reported or becoming known to police have increased over the last 12 months. For example, the variance between 2014 and 2015 for total offences against the person increased by 5 per cent, which is equivalent to 1,091 cases, and total offences against property increased by 6 per cent, which is equivalent to 3,096 cases.

The ABS analysis 'Recorded crime—offenders 2014-15, South Australia', highlighted that between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 figures there were three key movements of principal offences in South Australia that called for attention. For example, acts intended to cause injury were up 24 per cent; sexual assault and related offences, up 20 per cent; and abduction and harassment were up 31 per cent.

Less than a year after eight police stations were closed in metropolitan Adelaide, the police commissioner, Grant Stevens, has flagged further reductions in opening hours at various police stations throughout the state. My questions are:

1. With South Australia's crime statistics outlining a total increase of offences against persons and property, can the minister explain how South Australia is delivering an efficient and productive policing sector?

2. How does the minister intend to combat the increasing offences with the closure and limiting of opening hours of metropolitan police stations?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for her important question. Let me state from the outset that this government is incredibly proud of its record when it comes to criminal justice. We are incredibly proud of the hard work that this government has done by investing very large sums of money and a lot of policy thought into ensuring that community safety remains at the absolute core of this government's priorities.

Under this government's stewardship, in conjunction with the incredible hard work by SAPOL, my advice is that victim-reported crime has dropped during the course of this government's tenure by more than 40 per cent—more than 40 per cent. Let me just say that again: my advice is that under this government's watch victim-reported crime has dropped by more than 40 per cent. So, to have a question that implies that somehow this government has been neglectful in the criminal justice area completely defies the obvious statistics. I am further advised that ABS statistics also highlighted—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: ABS statistics—these are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a widely regarded source of information across the nation—also highlighted that while nationally the number of offenders went up by 2 per cent, in South Australia a 4 per cent drop has been experienced. So, I'm not sure exactly what statistics the honourable member is referring to when she tries to create a climate of fear within the community, but they completely defy the broader, higher level ABS statistics that people refer to.

This government has never seen that it is in the interests of community safety to unnecessarily cause fear within a community, but it strikes me that the line of questioning that the opposition seems to be coming up with seems to be wanting to create a level of fear within the community, that somehow SAPOL has dropped the ball, when clearly the evidence suggests otherwise.

In respect to the second part of the honourable member's question regarding what is this government doing about improving SAPOL's capacity, again I refer to the fact that this government has dramatically increased SAPOL's resources since the time we've come into office, on average, by 9 per cent.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I am flattered that the honourable Leader of the Opposition has been listening to my statistics—the fact that he can recite them. Maybe he will take the time to inform his backbench colleagues of the fact that we have indeed been increasing SAPOL's budget by an average of 9 per cent per annum because, had the honourable member been aware of that statistic herself and taken advice from the Leader of the Opposition in this place, she would know that this government remains utterly committed to increasing the resources that SAPOL has available to them.

On top of increasing SAPOL's resources, of course, what this government is also doing is backing our police commissioner. We are backing our police commissioner to be able to make the right decisions to ensure that where we have an environment of increasing resources we also have an environment where SAPOL is ensuring that those increased resources are reflected in additional and more efficient services on the front line, which of course means we are backing our police commissioner in his internal review to make sure that we don't have officers sitting around doing things where they could otherwise be doing activities on the front line to actively reduce policing.

I took the time last week to read the Marshall 36 plan (it took me about 30 seconds), and I read through their plan, which is really just a bunch of motherhood statements. But, something did jump out at me. He said, 'We believe'—they believe a lot of things—'resources need to be used in an efficient manner to provide services'—'resources need to be used in an efficient manner'. It then goes on to say, 'How we will achieve this together...reducing criminal behaviour through efficient, effective policing'—'reducing criminal behaviour through efficient, effective policing'.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, because those words in the Marshall plan are a complete endorsement in respect of this government's approach about what we need to be doing to back our police commissioner in to make decisions about what is efficient, what is productive. So, I take the Marshall plan as an endorsement of this government's strategy about backing our police commissioner into making efficient decisions. But we of course go further than does the opposition. The opposition comes up with motherhood statements, the opposition also endorses this government's strategy of backing in the police commissioner, but more than that this government is going to continue to increase the resources available to SAPOL.

I have seen nothing in the Marshall plan that talks about additional resources for police. By inference that may mean of course that part of the Marshall plan is to actually cut. I see no statements from the opposition about commitment to increasing resources. However, the government stands in stark contrast to the opposition. We are going to continue to increase resources available to SAPOL, including increasing the number of officers on the ground, but on top of that we will not rest on our laurels just by increasing resources.

We will also back the police commissioner in to make sure that, with increasing resources, we are also addressing productivity and efficiency. It is an appropriate stance, it delivers dividends and the ABS statistics reflect that result. But no amount of success, when it comes to community safety, will ever be enough for this government; we will continue to strive for continuous improvement, regardless of the opposition trying to create a climate of fear.