Bills

Statutes Amendment (Budget 2016) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 November 2016.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (11:03): I rise to speak on this bill. I note the contribution of the Hon. Mr Lucas in leading the debate for the Liberal Party and the significant issues he raised. I also note the generous accommodation given to me by the then acting leader of the government on the day after the blackout—the day when government departments across the city and the parliament closed down much earlier in the day than would be normal. I was asked not to give my speech so that the Appropriation Bill could proceed and I agreed to that, on the basis that I may well like to make those remarks in the budget bill debate. I appreciate the government's indication of that.

On 7 July this year the honourable Treasurer delivered what he called a jobs budget; however, the figures seem to be at odds with him on that. The Treasury's own figures have predicted a minuscule 0.75 per cent growth in employment over the next 12 months which is less than half the 1.8 per cent predicted by the Turnbull Coalition government. Last time the government delivered a jobs budget in 2015-16, employment growth was a tiny 0.5 per cent compared with the 1 per cent the government actually promised.

The honourable Treasurer also claimed to have delivered a net operating surplus for the 2015-16 financial year of $258 million; however, his own Mid-Year Budget Review had already written down the predicted surplus by $97 million. This reduced surplus has only been delivered because of the privatisation of the Motor Accident Commission. This delivered $448.5 million into state coffers this year, with a further $620.4 million to come in the forthcoming financial year. This means that the Treasurer's predicted $254 million surplus for 2016-17 actually comes up well short.

What is even more concerning is that the forecast public sector debt has increased from the $13.5 billion prediction in the Mid-Year Budget Review to $14.2 billion when we reach the peak in 2017-18. As someone who well remembers the State Bank debacle, to me, those figures are scary. Unfortunately, too many people in this place and beyond do not seem to worry about that figure, but as someone who has four grandchildren growing up, it worries the life out of me that they will face having to deal with that in the days after most of us are long gone.

These figures come despite a number of factors. Firstly, the increase in the solid waste levy will cost South Australians an extra $64 million over the next four years, with the price rising from $62 to $103 per tonne by 2019-20. Taxi, chauffeur and ride sharing trips such as Uber will now attract a $1 levy for every metropolitan trip from 2017-18. There will be a new 15 per cent tax on online gambling; a $5,000 cost per primary school student, or $6,000 cost per secondary student, for parents working in South Australia under 457 visas whose children attend public schooling. There will be an increase in GST revenue for South Australia in 2016-17 of $528 million when compared with the 2015-16 funding; and an additional $187 million in health funding from the commonwealth over the next three years.

Indeed, South Australia is the highest taxing jurisdiction in Australia, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission's tax effort ratio. In addition, this government continues to show that it cannot even manage the public sector. Labor has failed in its commitment on the number of public sector full-time equivalents predicted in its last budget. The number of public servants has blown out by 1,613 in June this year compared with their estimate for the same period in the 2015-16 budget, and all of this is part of the Treasurer's self-described 'God's work'.

I would like to turn to police stations. The Labor government has reduced the operating hours of 10 police stations across metropolitan Adelaide. What is worse is that the Parks and Wakefield Street police stations will close following a string of local station closures by this government across metropolitan Adelaide over the last two years. The stations that have been fortunate enough to escape the wrath of the Minister for Police and the so-called SAPOL review will be reduced to a 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday arrangement. If only crime and community need could work into this Public Service mentality, but the truth is that SAPOL's own figures show the community needs access to the stations long outside these new hours.

Indeed, work that was done by my office determined that the community response, particularly in relation to the Salisbury Police Station, was that the hours of greatest use—and this came directly from SAPOL—by the public of the Salisbury Police Station were outside the hours that SAPOL had recommended for the station. This decision will hurt communities and reduce the sense of community safety across the board. Local government bodies have entered the debate fearful of the effects these cuts will have to their local areas.

In fact, the City of Salisbury passed a motion in May this year highly critical of the cuts to its local police stations that cover the significant area of that council's jurisdiction. While the content is local, the issues highlighted are the same being experienced all over South Australia. The motion read, and I quote:

2. That a submission to be submitted to the SAPOL Organisational Reform Program by 27 May 2016 outlining council's concerns with the proposed reforms summarised as follows, and requesting the Commissioner not proceed with the proposed reforms in relation to the Salisbury, Holden Hill and Golden Grove police stations:

(a) lack of details of the specific usage data for the Salisbury, Holden Hill and Golden Grove police stations, particularly in relation to after-hours demand, that demonstrates that the local community will not be adversely affected by proposed changes in opening hours;

(b) likely detrimental impacts on community safety , a s the presence of an operating police station impacts the real and perceived safety of a community and the relative importance of a police station isn't uniform across all offence groups and the importance of police stations in reporting crime in creases for more serious crimes;

(c) A reduction in customer service availability, particularly for members of the community who are unable to attend a Police station during normal working hours;

(d) A lack of rationale aligning SAPOL operating hours to other government agencies, given the unique nature of services provided by SAPOL;

(e) Assurances are required of the numbers and extent of officers returning to frontline duty, should the proposed reduction in operating hours and the expected improvement to community safety; and

(f) The need to maintain meaningful connections with the community via a locally-based policing presence that is accessible to the community.

This motion came from South Australia's second largest local government area by population. It is worth picking up on a couple of those points.

First, the minister in this place has talked at great length about the fact that, if we do not have police stations such as Salisbury open, as he said, at three o'clock in the morning—and no-one is suggesting that they would be open at three o'clock in the morning—if these hours of opening for a lot of the police stations were reduced, we would get more officers out on the beat, canvassing around their various LSA areas.

What we have not been told—certainly I have not been told, and I do not think anybody has been told—is the extent to which we will get officers returning to front-line duties, as is the phrase used by the minister and SAPOL, rather than being at a desk, as the minister has told us in this chamber on many occasions.

Point (f) is another one that I need to pick up on, too. The minister in this chamber and Chief Superintendent Bob Fauser, who has been in charge of the SAPOL reform program, were both interviewed on ABC 891 at the same time as I was. The minister was obviously unhappy with what Chief Superintendent Fauser was doing because he (the minister) decided to come on over the top of him. Both of them have used, what I would call, 'weasel words' that do not provide a guarantee that police officers, where appropriate, will be able to assist a range of community groups, as part of their employed position, in their work time.

The minister was probably longer in his phrase about it, and less definitive. I well remember Chief Superintendent Fauser saying that it was if SAPOL officers choose to engage with community groups. Basically, police officers can do it in their own time or not at all. I think that is a very sad reflection on these reforms which are going ahead, because there are a great deal of community groups: Neighbourhood Watch, Blue Light, Duke of Edinburgh, suicide prevention groups, and a large number of others, that police officers have had a very good role in working with, as part of their employment.

What is generally the case, and particularly in country areas—but certainly not only in country areas—is that quite often if a police officer is allowed to work with those groups, as part of their role, then they will give more of their own time to those organisations. Having been up to an Operation Flinders exercise last week, I reflect on the fact that in a previous reform—under a previous police minister and a previous police commissioner—the ability of SAPOL officers to participate in the Operation Flinders exercise, as part of their paid employment, was removed, probably the best part of a decade ago. That was denied at the time by the police commissioner, but it is obviously the case.

Now the role that was well taken up by police officers, and I must say valued by police officers—they have a very high regard for the work that Operation Flinders does to keep young people out of their system—needs to be filled by volunteers. The volunteers do a great job, particularly the role they play in the abseiling part of the exercise, which is something the young people get a great deal out of, and I experienced that at some length when I spoke to members of six of the eight teams, just before they were leaving the exercise. But it is a long way from Adelaide, and there are costs in getting people up there.

The government is actually cutting more than a quarter of a billion dollars from SAPOL's budget over the next four years. We keep being told, in this place, that these station closures are about a redeployment of resources and not a cost-saving measure, but the $261 million which will go missing from SAPOL over the next four years indicates otherwise. In fact, 90 per cent of police officers surveyed by the Police Association of South Australia believe that the SAPOL organisational review, which is responsible for the cuts to police station opening hours, is a result of government budget cuts.

The other matter I would like to briefly speak about is the roller-coaster tale of Labor's recruitment promise for police. That is indicative of the fact that the direction of SAPOL over many years has changed. We now see that the much-vaunted LSA arrangements are going out of the window for this district policing model. Police personnel are just as confused about that as they are about the changes between the Premier and this current minister in relation to whether we can meet the recruitment promises made.

I have the highest regard for members of SAPOL. They do fabulous work in the community. They put themselves at the forefront in situations that most of us would not want to experience. In particular, I raised this year with SAPOL management the preparation of their first responders to the impact of having to deal with suicide deaths because I think that is important.

Increasingly, members of SAPOL, family members of SAPOL officers and even, more recently, retired SAPOL members are urging me and others to make sure that SAPOL does more to give confidence to officers that SAPOL has their back, particularly in relation to mental health issues. I think the wheels are starting to turn slowly in relation to that but they are slow. Certainly, in other states, and particularly in New South Wales, much more is being done to prepare first responders for the potential impacts on their own mental health in having to deal with a suicide or an attempted suicide that may eventuate.

With those words, I, once again, appreciate the government's accommodation to be able to bring those matters to the council and I look forward—as does the Hon. Mr Lucas—to the answers coming forward to the questions that he has raised in relation to this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.