Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Police Stations Police Stations The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council Police Stations The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question regarding police station opening hours. Leave granted. The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Last year's SA Police reforms saw the closure of nine police stations and a reduction in opening hours of another nine stations. This decision sparked concerns among residents about the level of protection of their communities. It has been indicated previously that these changes underwent community consultation in May 2016 before being implemented in September last year. However, while many residents around the state in general and the Salisbury council in particular objected to the changes, they were implemented anyway. Given this, my questions to the minister are: 1.	What public awareness campaign occurred for the notification of the decrease of opening hours around the nine police stations across metropolitan Adelaide? 2.	Were individual local campaigns conducted in specific geographic areas? 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) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his questions. In answer to the honourable member's direct question, I'm advised that extensive consultation occurred both internally and externally by SAPOL, including engagement with affected members of parliament and local councils in the lead-up to the police commissioner making his final decision around the operation of police station hours in and around metropolitan Adelaide. This is a subject that the opposition continue to raise, both in this forum but also in the media. I have to say it's a joke. It's a complete joke because the opposition are demonstrating their complete ineptitude when it comes to understanding the way that police operations work within the state. I have to say that I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the fact that those who purport themselves as being the alternative government of this state have a fundamental failure in understanding the way that policing is supposed to operate; that is, we invest, through the Police Act, the responsibility of police operations in the police commissioner. I was particularly concerned recently when I saw the opposition spokesperson for police advocating that they would simply change the way police station hours operate in this state. That is a remarkable proposition because what that proposition says is that the opposition will undo the hard work of the police commissioner to put more police officers out on the beat. I want to give the opposition a hot tip: criminals don't commit acts of crime sitting around in the car parks of police stations. Criminals don't walk through the front door of a police station and commit an act of crime. They do it out in the burbs; they do it out on the streets. That is where we want police officers to be. We want the police commissioner to use all the resources this government has provided him with, including a record number of police, to get those police out from behind desks and out on the front line serving our community. The fact that we have an opposition that is going to start to unwind a substantial and important principle—that the police commissioner is able to determine police positions—shows just how unready those opposite are for governing this state. This mob is simply not ready. They are simply incapable of absolutely upholding important principles around community safety. I have faith in the police commissioner getting officers out from behind desks and onto the front line. I find it somewhat remarkable that those opposite would simply undo that principle. It is quite simply shameful.