Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 February 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): I rise to speak on the bill before us, the necessary annual bill that makes some necessary changes to the legislation in order to give effect to a range of measures included in the state budget. The government has included amendments to the Police Act, which effectively change the arrangements for protective security officers and bring them within the ambit of the Police Act. This will allow protective security officers into SA Police in order to conduct a range of tasks that police would otherwise be conducting. This was agreed to by the police with respect to the enterprise bargaining agreement.

Changes have also been included to simplify the Land Acquisition Act and to expedite economic stimulus measures in appropriate cases. Government, by ministerial notice in the Gazette, will be enabled to fix a possession date for land to be acquired that is less than three months from the date of the notice of acquisition for a specified project or projects. This will make it easier for government to effectively gain access to the land. We hope and we will be overseeing to make sure this power is used in good faith.

The bill also clarifies the definition of 'vacant land', which is now defined to include residential land on which no person is lawfully residing at the time, or non-residential land that is not genuinely being used for income-producing purposes at the time, or primary production land that is not actively being used for grazing, cropping, horticultural, horse keeping, intensive animal keeping, animal husbandry or other primary production purposes at the time. The stated purpose of this is hoped to avoid disputes and delay when vacant land is sought to be acquired.

There are some minor changes to the State Lotteries Act to better apply commissions so that they are consistent with what occurs in other jurisdictions, of which we are supportive. Unfortunately, there are some changes that yet again seek to increase the costs for the community, with the Public Trustee to increase investment management fees. This is the latest in a succession of fee increases that we have seen for clients of the Public Trustee over the last 2½ years. This government seems addicted to increasing fees and charges, and the effects of a global pandemic have not stopped this addiction.

Despite what the government tries to tell South Australians about delivering lower costs and better services, every year it seems there is an increase to many fees and charges, and new privatisations. We have had a massive increase in taxes, fees and charges in 2019 designed to raise an amazing extra $50 million a year from South Australians, and this is a 2 per cent increase which the government has tried to sneak through without so much as a press release. While other states froze fees and charges to ease the burden on families during the pandemic, the Treasurer and the Premier have not seen fit to allow that for South Australians.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:30): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill 2020 second reading. The bill seeks to implement a range of amendments to various acts, with the common theme of boosting the coffers of Treasury. I think, to be fair, those coffers have been heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, just as the resources of SAPOL and SA Health have.

This bill provides the legislative framework to expand the role of police security officers (PSOs) via regulation. That is one of the elements of this bill that I was particularly interested in learning about. I understand both SAPOL and the Police Association are in favour of utilising the PSO workforce in support roles. Currently, PSOs provide security and guard services to a variety of government buildings and facilities, like here at Parliament House. As I said, exactly what the role will entail in SA will be in the regulations, with further limits imposed by the police commissioner. That is obviously something that we can look at in terms of further scrutiny when those regulations are introduced.

They will be able to possibly assume cell guard duties in police custodial facilities and accompany police prisoners to hospital and could also assist with the serving of warrants in low-risk situations. There may be some concerns that arise out of some of those aspects but, again, we will have the opportunity to consider that further when the regulations are introduced.

In general, SA-Best does believe that it makes sense for our highly skilled sworn police officers to be fulfilling the more specialist roles within their skill set, roles they are extensively trained and experienced to do. It has become even more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic that more PSOs could have been utilised to monitor and enforce COVID-19 compliance.

There is a lot of ground to suggest it is not the best use of trained police officers to be issuing expiation notices at restaurants, processing paperwork at our airports and borders or guarding low-risk prisoners in hospitals or police cells. These sworn police officers need to be focusing on criminal investigation and prevention and the apprehension of offenders. They should be responding to domestic violence complaints and dealing with our drug epidemic. There is a host of very serious issues that police attend to every day, and we need them on the ground doing just that.

I understand the commissioner will determine the exact number of PSO appointments and rank structure, and I do have some apprehension about that. Our support comes with a very important caveat, that we will be looking for assurances that this is not a backdoor way of reducing frontline police numbers. That is a very key part of our concerns around this, that we are using this for the purpose that we have been told is intended, to have more police on the ground doing police work and not, as I said, a backdoor way of reducing frontline police numbers.

That increase of PSOs just cannot result in that. It cannot result in a decrease in police cadet training or general police officer numbers. If I am seeking one assurance from the government and from the minister in particular, it is just that. An expanded PSO workforce must complement the current workforce, not replace or reduce it.

Other important provisions of the bill, which I asked specific questions about, were the changes to the clamping, impounding and forfeiture of vehicles and ensuring offenders actually pay the impounding fee when they arrive at the pound to have their car released. At present, a vehicle can be returned after 28 days, up to 90 days if the commissioner applies to the Magistrates Court for an extension. As I understand it, it is then up to the court to order payment of the impound fee and for the police effectively to chase that payment. Of course, the courts can also use their discretion in terms of the actual fee that will be payable.

To put this into some context, in 2018-19, there were some 4,900 vehicles impounded by SAPOL. In 2019-20, that number increased to some 6,276. Of those, 600 were impounded as a result of drug driving, 600 were forfeited and, as I understand it, 600 out of 1,000 applications based on financial hardship were granted. Fifty out of 400 were impounded for driving 45 kilometres or more over the speed limit.

SAPOL has told us that it has missed out on some $1.5 million in funds and fees in the 2018 financial year due to the current process we have in place. It is costing a hell of a lot of money. I know that there is a lot of sympathy also for the view that hitting people with these sorts of costs when they can least afford them just continues to perpetuate a vicious cycle, and that is not extremely helpful.

But I think in these instances when we are talking about people who are on the road and they are doing the wrong thing—they are drinking, they are taking drugs or they are hoon driving, they are driving 45 kilometres over the limit—then we have to reach a point where we say, 'Actually, you have effectively lost all rights to be on the road.' If it means that your car is forfeited because you cannot afford to have it released, and there is nobody else that the car belongs to or relies on the use of, then I think the police's view is that there has to be a threshold, if you like, and basically these people have to pay for what they have done and what they continue to do, and they have to do so at the level of the cost that it is actually creating as opposed to some reduced cost.

Under changes being proposed under the bill, in the event that an offender is found not guilty or the charges are withdrawn—and there are no charges, of course, out of the same conduct—there is provision for the fee to be refunded. Hardship provisions will remain for those caught up in other people's offending, which is a very positive step.

As we know, as is often the case, a vehicle or a motorbike might be impounded but it may have been used illegally. It may have been stolen, it may have been taken from a family member without their knowledge, there is an array of reasons, and there is no reason to punish other people for the actions of those few. So they are certainly measures that we support. If you commit a crime, though, using your vehicle, then there is a very strong argument from the police that you should pay the consequences, and I think there is a very strong community expectation for the same.

As to the remaining parts of the bill, I do not propose to speak about them other than to say I do not think there is anything we are overly concerned about or that has been pointed out to us in relation to issues of contention. I look forward to hearing other views in this place and I also look forward to hearing from the government in response to the issues that I have raised with PSO measures. With those words, I indicate our broad support for the second reading of the bill, subject to the reassurances we have flagged that we will be seeking from the minister in relation to those PSOs.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:38): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the bill. In relation to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's question on police numbers, I cannot remember the exact numbers. It is either 4,713 or 4,317. When we get into committee, I will clarify the exact number but there is an agreement from the former government, which the new government has agreed with, in terms of police numbers. It is not written into the award or anything like that. The Police Association has not sought that. But whatever that number is that the former government agreed to, the new government has agreed to in relation to the numbers of police.

As the member would have had explained to her in the briefings, a lot of these issues are operational decisions in relation to, for example, police stations in terms of the staffing within police stations. The current commissioner has made changes to the current staffing models within the metropolitan area and I know in some regional areas has made decisions in relation to staffing arrangements. They are essentially operational decisions.

I think the honourable member has hit the nail on the head, however, when she says in relation to this issue that the Police Association, well known and well regarded for protecting what they see to be not only the best interests of their members, which is obviously important as the Police Association, but the best interests in terms of policing, have strongly supported this particular proposal. The protection, from their viewpoint and I think from the community and the crossbenchers' viewpoint, is that the reference to regulations, which will need to be brought down, needs to be consulted on.

Clearly, given the nature of the Legislative Council, as we have seen demonstrated on any number of other regulations in recent times, there is the capacity for regulations to be disallowed should there be no agreement. My experience with the Police Association is that governments of both persuasions have generally sought to get the agreement of the Police Association and the police commissioner, two important elements of this particular discussion, and in relation to this they have both seen the good sense of this proposal and have sought assurances and have been given assurances within the construct of budget issues.

I am just advised that my recollection was correct that 4,713 is the magic number that the former government had committed to and the new government has committed to in terms of the number of police in South Australia. With that, I thank honourable members for their contributions in terms of indicating support for the second reading of the budget measures bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.