HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

FIREARM OFFENCES

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:25): Very sadly, I rise again to inform the house of the ongoing epidemic of shootings that are taking place in the streets and homes of South Australia. This started on New Year's Eve just gone with a murder at Warradale and has continued up to as recently as last Saturday night with a shooting into a house at Craigmore. We have had 18 shootings in total in South Australia since New Year's Eve. Let me be very clear, these are all illegal shootings. These are not accidental shootings. This does not include, for example, the unfortunate situation where a man in the South-East was shot accidentally with a rifle. These are, very clearly, illegal shootings where somebody is shooting a South Australian or shooting at a South Australian.

This alarming trend seems to continue unabated. Every three and a half days, on average, a South Australian is shot or shot at. We have 7 per cent of the nation's population in South Australia but, unfortunately, we have had 29 per cent of the nation's shootings since New Year's Eve, so more than four times our population's share. We would all understand very clearly that if things go roughly according to plan you would expect to have approximately 7 per cent of those sorts of things (ideally less) in our state, but we have had four times that: 7 per cent of the population but 29 per cent of all shootings are taking place in South Australia.

Let me compare that to some other states: New South Wales, with a population of nearly 7.3 million people, has only had 25 shootings. If you look at the per capita basis, in South Australia you are greater than five times more likely to be shot or shot at than all of the rest of the states and territories in Australia combined. Victoria, with a population of three and a half times as much as our population, has only had eight shootings compared to 18 so far in our state. This is an exceptionally alarming trend that has to be stopped. The police are doing absolutely everything they possibly can. The government must do more. The government has to do more.

On a per capita basis, people in Adelaide are 3.2 times more likely to be shot or shot at than people in Sydney. This is not something the government can sweep under the carpet. South Australians are more likely to be shot or shot at than in any other territory or state in the nation. If we look at shootings per capita, in South Australia we have 10.9 shootings per million people, while the rest of the nation has 2.1 per million people. It is completely unacceptable.

As the Hon. Stephen Wade, shadow attorney-general, has pointed out, this government has announced firearm law reforms in 2006, 2007, 2008 and again in 2012 and yet nothing is happening. The average of shootings per year for the past five years reported is 44 per year. If we continue on at the rate that we are on at the moment we will have in excess of 100 this year. So, the government's firearm law reforms are just not working. More than 2,300 new offences have been created in the past decade. They are not working because we are on track to actually have more than twice the annual average in South Australia compared to the last five years.

I turn now to the national anti-gang taskforce that has just been set up at $64 million. It will be made up of up to 70 members from the Australian Federal Police and state police forces, but guess what, these strike teams will be established in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, not in South Australia. Strike teams will be supported by physical technical surveillance teams in Sydney and Melbourne, but not in South Australia.

I ask very sincerely: can the government please explain why this national task force is not being set up in South Australia when we clearly have the biggest problem of all the states and territories in this area? Has the government or the minister even lobbied the federal government for this issue in South Australia? We had the police commissioner, who does the very best he can with the resources he gets from the government, saying that he was only advised a few hours before the announcement. The government is not doing enough in this area.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:30): I could not allow the previous contribution to go by without some response. There are a few points I would like to make about all of this which are, I think, relevant. The first thing is that the honourable member in his remarks has said that 'the police are doing all they can', so there is no blame on the police and no problem with the police.

He then performs an act of statistical regurgitation about percentages of this and percentages of that, how many here and how many there compared to South Australia and other states. It is all very interesting, especially when you look at particular sample periods. It is a well-known fact that you can achieve any particular purpose you wish using statistics if you are careful enough about the way you draw your sample periods, but leave that to one side.

The honourable member says the Commissioner of Police is doing everything the commissioner can and he calls on the government to do something in addition. Bear in mind that the government, in the form of the ministers and the members of parliament, is not able to go out on the streets and personally arrest people. The government is not able to do any of those things, so precisely what the government can do remains a mystery because, like everything we hear from this opposition, there is a lot of whingeing and whining but there is not one single policy put forward.

The Hon. Stephen Wade has managed single-handedly to either block or castrate umpteen pieces of legislation put forward by this government since the beginning of this term on the basis of spurious issues. In the end, he had to be humiliated by the South Australia Police into actually agreeing to things—for example, criminal intelligence, which he held up for two years. They do not take any responsibility for that. Not only are they a policy-free zone but they take great pleasure in prohibiting the government using the parliament to actually change the legislation in a constructive way, as requested by the police.

Guess what? We are going to see the same thing happen right now on this day, but I cannot go into the detail because it is against standing orders. My challenge to the opposition and, in particular, the honourable member is this: if the opposition say the legislation is defective, can they just for once, instead of being an apologist for criminals, as they usually are, by pulling all—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: standing orders 126 and 127.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to the member.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask that the minister retract and apologise for calling members of the opposition 'apologists for criminals'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will explain why I say that: because every time we have put legislation into this parliament designed to clamp down on criminals and make their lives difficult, the opposition, and in particular the Hon. Stephen Wade in the other place, take great pleasure in pulling all the teeth out of the legislation so that it is ineffective.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: 127 does not give the minister the opportunity to argue why something might be the case. It specifically states that a member may not make personal reflections on any other member. The minister should withdraw, apologise and move on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on please. Obviously there has been a case of taking objection to what the minister said. If the minister so chooses, he can withdraw all that. I am not actually ordering him to do so, I am just offering him the opportunity.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you. I have said nothing that I consider to be offensive, because it is all entirely accurate. The removal of—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: again I take offence at that. It is not accurate to say that anybody in the opposition is an apologist for criminals. The Attorney-General can put his comments towards debate in parliament and different views about laws, but saying that anybody on this side is an apologist for a criminal is offensive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the member for Stuart would be aware, I have already ruled on that and have given the opportunity to the minister, and the minister is continuing his remarks.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And isn't it a shame—this is obviously discomfiting them so much they keep having to put up spurious interjections in order to occupy time which otherwise would be devoted to actually drawing the attention of the parliament to the fact that the opposition has steadfastly for the last three and a bit years opposed every single criminal measure the government has put up by pulling the teeth out of it. It is only when they have been embarrassed by SAPOL or the police association into doing otherwise that they have relented.

Time expired.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT