HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

South Australia Police

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:04): By leave, I move:

To amend the motion standing in my name to insert the words 'in the opinion of this house' after the word 'That' first appearing, and add the following parts 2 and 3 after '(i) any other related matters':

2. In the event of the joint committee being appointed, the House of Assembly be represented thereon by three members, of whom two shall form a quorum of assembly members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee.

3. That a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing resolution and requesting its concurrence thereto.

So that the motion reads:

That in the opinion of this house, a joint committee be appointed to inquire and report into—

1. (a) the impact upon service delivery of the government's budget savings targets for SAPOL;

(b) the intended and potential consequences of organisational reforms proposed for SAPOL;

(c) the civilianisation of police positions previously undertaken by sworn police officers;

(d) the potential impact upon service delivery of closing police stations and the reduction of opening hours at others;

(e) the government's election commitment of $5.3 million to demolish and rebuild a new Henley Beach Police Station which will operate 9am to 5pm weekdays, rather than the recently extended hours of 8am to 11pm seven days per week;

(f) progress in achieving the government's election commitment to recruit an additional 313 police officers by 30th June 2018;

(g) the resources available to SAPOL to meet the government's target of an additional 313 police officers by 30th June 2018;

(h) the use of SAPOL resources to hold prisoners and remandees on behalf of Department of Correctional Services; and

(i) any other related matters.

2. In the event of the joint committee being appointed, the House of Assembly be represented thereon by three members, of whom two shall form a quorum of assembly members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee.

3. That a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing resolution and requesting its concurrence thereto.

Leave granted.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: At the outset, let me be very clear that I am exceptionally supportive of SAPOL, as I know other members of this house are—both political parties are. Everybody should be. We have the best police force in the nation.

Moving for this select committee is not about trying to give SAPOL a hard time at all. They are the best police force in the nation, but they are not above scrutiny either. It is the right of members of parliament, and of parliament itself, to look into police activities, and it is my strong belief that it is the government's lack of resources and budget cutting that is forcing SAPOL to make decisions and go down directions which SAPOL would not otherwise be pursuing. It is really not about SAPOL; it is very much about the pressure put on to SAPOL by government pressures which are leading to unsatisfactory outcomes, both for SAPOL and for South Australia at large.

We know that in the current forward estimates period, SAPOL's budget has been cut by $261 million, and that is an enormous slice of money. That is a huge amount of money out of the SAPOL budget. It is inconceivable that that would not have a direct impact upon service delivery and SAPOL's decisions, starting with the commissioner and all the way through the organisation, with regard to how best it can support and serve South Australians under such a very harsh regime.

We hear all the time from the government that the budget blowouts in health are because they are unavoidable because people get sick, people have accidents, and people require health services. Unfortunately, the government still finds it possible to just say that regardless of the demand upon SAPOL they just have to cut their budget nonetheless. The amount of $261 million over the forward estimates period is a very significant budget cut, and it is leading to very significant and, potentially, negative organisational reforms.

SAPOL should always be reinventing itself. SAPOL should always be questioning the way it works. Should some things be done that are not done now? Should some things that are done now not be done? Should some things that are being done be done differently? Or, in fact, should some things that are being done continue in the same way?

Of course they should always be going through that sort of introspection, and I have no doubt that Commissioner Stevens and his senior team would be doing that all the time, whether there were budget cuts or not, but the fact that there are such harsh budget cuts will change the outcomes of those decisions, because there will be some paths that they will be forced down because they have no other choice because of budget cuts.

I believe that the proposal to very significantly civilianise the South Australian police force fits into that category. Not to say at all that there should be no civilians in SAPOL—far from it: of course there should. There are activities that civilians can do just as well as sworn officers, and it is quite appropriate that you would pursue that course of action and essentially not waste a sworn officer on some of those activities, and yes, of course, as time goes on, that list and those types of tasks need to be reviewed and considered. But the very dramatic increase, which is something like recruiting 50 per cent civilians, is clearly budget driven. These are the sorts of things that need to be looked into.

The reduction of hours of operation at police stations and the closing of police stations is a very emotive, hot-button issue. I do not say that no police station should ever close or should ever have its hours reduced; of course there will be situations where that should happen. As the community around that station changes, as technology changes, as officers' skills and capacities change, of course there will be instances where that is completely appropriate, but there seems to be a very strong requirement to close police stations because of budgetary constraints and/or to reduce their hours.

Deputy Speaker, I bring your attention to the Henley Beach Police Station, which is being rebuilt at the moment at a cost of $5.3 million. The opposition strongly supports that. We believe that was a police station that needed to be upgraded and that the range of activities happening in the broader surrounding area of the Henley Beach Police Station warranted a rebuild. But that rebuild was announced in the dying days just before the last 2014 state election and, at that point in time, the member for Colton and the Premier told everybody in South Australia that this was an absolutely necessary investment and, essentially, a necessary resource for SAPOL, and the hours of 8am to 11pm seven days a week, with this new upgraded, state-of-the-art police station, were actually what Henley Beach and the surrounding district needed.

Now, of course, as we all know, those hours have been reduced down to nine to five, five days a week. We are all open-minded and we can all understand that technology improves and community expectations improve and police capacity improves, but to make that bold statement in the dying days of the election that this upgrade and the extended hours were absolutely necessary for community safety and to now say, 'Actually, they are not at all. Now it can be business hours,' really does beggar belief. I think that is just one example of many that this committee, if the government agrees to establish it, could look into and that the community of South Australia would benefit from straightaway.

We need to have a very thorough, objective and impassionate decision-making process about reinvestment and rebuilding police stations and their hours of operation, not having the government come out to shore up a very marginal seat in the last couple of days before an election and offer money, extended hours and extended support to the local community through SAPOL and then two years later say, 'Well, actually it's just not necessary anymore, so we're not going to do it.' That is not what I would call a thorough, objective and impassionate review of how policing should be operating, and I am confident that the local community around the Henley Beach Police Station has exactly the same opinion.

The Recruit 313 election promise—which was made by the government back in 2010 as an election commitment and was originally to be delivered by 2014, that is, that the government would recruit an additional 313 police officers net on top of current sworn officer population at the time—is something that has been outrageously dealt with by the government. As I said, made in 2010, to be fulfilled by 2014, and now the government says it will fulfil it by 2018.

That commitment was to grow the number of sworn police officers by 313 and now the government is trying to suggest that cadets should be included in that number, which was very clearly not the case at the time. I fear that the government might also try to include civilians in that recruiting promise and say, 'Oh we've recruited a lot of civilians and a lot of cadets and some police officers and the total of all of them adds up to 313, and so we have fulfilled the promise.' Well, that would be completely unacceptable. The promise was very clearly for 313 additional net sworn officers.

The government still says—the Premier has restated, and the police minister has restated—that it will fulfil that promise, and I welcome that, that is a terrific thing, but the commissioner has also made it very clear in his statements to the Budget and Finance Committee that he would need an additional $8 million per year in his police budget to be able to fulfil that promise, and if he does not get that $8 million per year extra in his police budget, he will not be able to fulfil that promise on behalf of the government and, as I said earlier, we know the government is reducing the police budget by $261 million dollars over four years.

Two successive police commissioners have said that it will not be possible to fulfil the government's Recruit 313 election commitment with existing resources and yet the government says it will still fulfil that commitment, so nobody really knows how. It is not possible for the commissioner to be saying that he cannot get enough sworn police officers, that he is actually going to recruit more civilian officers. The government is saying, no, they are still going to recruit 313 extra sworn officers. The commissioner says that he needs $8 million more in his budget and the government says, 'Well, actually, you are going to have $261 million less in your budget over four years.'

Those statements, which have all been made to this parliament and/or to parliamentary committees, cannot all be true. I think it is very obvious that this proposed select committee should look into that. The promise that the government says it is still going to keep, based on all the evidence we have, cannot be kept. The government should just come clean and say, 'Look, we can't do it anymore,' or should come clean and say, 'We are still going to do it and we're going to give the commissioner and SAPOL the resources that they need so that they can fulfil that promise.'

The resources that the government has given to the Department for Correctional Services has meant that the Department for Correctional Services has had to put extraordinary pressure on police, and DCS remandees are being held (from time to time) in police cells at Sturt, Port Adelaide and Holden Hill. That is putting undue pressure on those police stations and on police resources. That is a very important issue that needs to be looked at.

Again, that is a government resources issue: not providing resources to the Department for Correctional Services is putting SAPOL under extraordinary pressure and requiring SAPOL to make decisions that they would not otherwise want to have. That lack of resources from the government is having very negative consequences on both of those departments—both SAPOL and the Department for Correctional Services.

Very regularly, all of us here in this house speak in glowing terms about SAPOL. On particular anniversaries and particular events and particular situations, any number of us have spoken up. I have many times and I stand by every single thing I have ever said in this house—in general, but specifically about SAPOL at the moment.

If members of this chamber really believe everything that they have ever said in support of SAPOL, they will support the establishment of this committee. If members here really believe that SAPOL are as good as we want them to be and that SAPOL deserve the resources that they need so that they can do the job required of them, then they will support this select committee to look into it so that SAPOL knows that they genuinely have their support. I do not mean just on nice days when we are wearing different ribbons on our jackets and things like that when people stand up, but that they honestly support SAPOL and they want SAPOL to have these resources so that SAPOL can get on and do the job that we want them to do on behalf of all South Australians.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:20): I rise today to advise that the government does not support and cannot support the motion put before the house by the member for Stuart. As he knows, I have a lot of respect for the member for Stuart, and I know that he always brings a lot of sensible debate in this area to this house, but to suggest that someone opposing this motion does not support the police is a little offensive, I think.

I do not know if anyone could argue that I do not support the police and have not supported the police throughout my work in this house since I have been elected but, moving on, we do not support the motion before the house generally because it is so broad ranging. What it essentially does is undermine the idea of an independent police commissioner which is what we have in this state. The conventions are that we respect that convention.

This government is very proud of its record in delivering results for both community safety and our highly respected police force. It should be noted that SAPOL's budget in 2015-16 would rise to almost $850 million which is the highest ever funding allocation for SAPOL. What this record investment translates to is that South Australia continues to have more police per capita than any other state in Australia, except the Northern Territory.

What is more, this investment in our police force has contributed to cutting victim-reported crime by more than one-third for the 10-year period to 2013-14. These results could not have been achieved if not for this government's ongoing support for police to deliver safer communities for all South Australians.

As members would be aware and, as the member for Stuart outlined quite comprehensively, South Australia Police are conducting an organisational review to keep up with community expectations. The nature of policing is obviously rapidly evolving and it is important that SAPOL is able to modernise to meet future challenges rather than just leaning back on the old ways of doing things, and this is what the Commissioner is doing.

Let me be clear that these are operational matters for the police commissioner to determine and not an opportunity for members opposite to push for yet another committee. I would add that the police commissioner regularly appears before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee and the chair gives a lot of leeway particularly to the forensic examinations of the member for Hartley to ask wide-ranging questions regularly of the police commissioner. Also, the Budget and Finance Committee hears regularly from the police commissioner, among others, on broad ranging questions.

Not only is it not the business of this government to instruct the police on how to do their job, the idea of a committee that is set up in order to tell the police how to do their job is frankly unnecessary. The commissioner and I and the government would rather have coppers on the beat keeping our community safe rather than police sitting around waiting for people to come in to do these simple administrative tasks, and that is why the police commissioner is making these changes to police station hours, not for any other reason other than getting coppers out on the beat. For these reasons, I and others on this side of the house oppose this motion.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:23): I rise today to support the member for Stuart's motion to establish a select committee to inquire and report into a number of police related matters. Listening to the member for Little Para, stating that the member for Stuart comes into this chamber with sensible debate and input, I think is testament to why we should be supporting this select committee.

Select committees are not there to undermine SAPOL. We all acknowledge the great work that SAPOL do. They keep us safe, they do the best with what they have and the resources that are allocated to them and, yes, we have an independent Commissioner of Police. However, there are growing concerns about some of the directions that SAPOL are having to work under—budgetary cuts, for example. It is not an increasing budget that continues to go into SAPOL to reflect the increasing crime, increasing drug problem that we have on our streets and the increasing concerns with many jurisdictions that SAPOL deal with.

This is an avenue which I believe could provide some answers—and I will particularly talk about my electorate of Chaffey—about the current situation with police station hours and future plans for police stations, particularly in the Riverland and the Mallee. I have asked the previous minister for police questions in this chamber, and I am still waiting on answers. Those questions were about a town like Renmark, with a reasonably large population (about 8,000). It is concerning that the station is now only manned when an officer is available.

The Hon. P. Caica: Staffed.

Mr WHETSTONE: That might be staffed, but this is all about the budgets that they have to work under. When people go to a police station it is not just about SAPOL issues. Whether it is licensing issues or filling out forms, there is a myriad of paperwork that has to be signed in today's red-tape world led by this current government. It shows us that there are fewer resources put into, as the member for Little Para would say, coppers on the beat. What we are seeing now is a reduced number of police in cars on the beat, because we do not have administration staff or police officers who are actually in the station giving support to those local communities.

The administration headquarters was previously moved to Murray Bridge; again, that is a reduction in SAPOL service in my electorate. We are now seeing a reduced number of senior SAPOL officers who are dealing with the bigger picture. I must say that there is a growing concern of people who are worried about operating hours, particularly in Renmark and Loxton. Those stations are seeing a decline in the services that they offer. Loxton is the hub for a very large area between the Riverland and the Mallee, as is Renmark. It covers a very large area with a reasonably dense population, and yet we are seeing fewer and fewer police in those stations in those areas.

Previously, I raised the issue with the police minister in the local media because of local concerns. He said he would look into staffing numbers. He said it was the responsibility of the police commissioner, but I do note that I still have not received a written answer from him or from the new police minister. We have a growing concern about drugs, particularly in the Riverland, and that requires a stronger police presence. I note a recent campaign, Operation Acidify, which Berri police ran for more than a year (2014 and 2015), has culminated in the arrest of 183 people for drug offences, including possession and trafficking of a controlled drug.

Obviously, it has been very widely supported, and I have been a very strong advocate for the anti-methamphetamine stance, which is sadly on most people's doorsteps right throughout the state. Regional communities seem to be much more impacted, but it is the good work of SAPOL that is addressing this issue. It is a growing issue, but we are not seeing SAPOL numbers growing to deal with this issue. It is a scourge on society, but SAPOL is saying that they are doing the best they can with the resources they currently have.

In terms of police issues and drug diversions, since Operation Acidify another 88 people have been found, particularly with possession and with intent to sell. That is the issue. SAPOL are dealing with the issue but not with resources that I find satisfactory. They are dealing with this issue in the best way they can.

Again, the police minister reconfirmed the government's election commitment to recruit an additional 313 sworn officers. The member for Stuart has already gone over that, so I will not repeat what he has said. However, it was an election commitment and it is something that has been left wanting. I know that the member for Colton was very proud of the pre 2014 election announcement about the upgrade or the rebuild of the Henley Beach Police Station. That has now been downgraded to almost just office hours. It was a huge investment which was going to be open for extended hours and which now has been wound back.

They are the sorts of concerns—the moving promises whereby the reality turns into just a half a promise being committed. On the matter of police numbers, police presence, the issue with the manned hours of police stations, particularly in the electorate of Chaffey, the Riverland and Mallee, I am sure this is a reflection right around the state where we are seeing police who are spending more time behind a desk filling out regulatory requirements than actually out there doing what they are expected to do, that is, to keep our community safe from the scourge of drugs, people doing the wrong thing, making sure that our roads are safe and making sure that people are abiding by the law.

The member for Stuart's select committee ask, I think, is a very sensible ask, and I commend this to the house. I think that the government should be supporting it because SAPOL is calling out for more resources, it is calling out for more help. We have had added pressures on SAPOL with corrections, we have added pressures on SAPOL with the increased drug use. We have the increased drug-driving issue that is sadly becoming more and more dominant than ever before as our testing stations pick up more people now who are using drugs while driving. This select committee is warranted, and I commend the member for Stuart for bringing it to the chamber.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:31): I rise to support the member for Stuart's proposal by way of motion to establish a select committee. The reason we need this is because the government makes promises, and ministers, the Premier and other members go out and make promises about what they are going to do to support the police in South Australia to undertake their work. They put out press releases, they make election promises, they make announcements, they stand arm in arm with the police and tell them that they are, obviously, going to be supported in legislative powers, and the like, and then, in the next breath when it does not suit them or they run out of money or they get into trouble or there is a policy that does not suit them, they say, 'This is for the commissioner. This is an operational matter.'

That is why we have to have this inquiry, because the government keeps making promises and then changes it. It made a commitment last year, supported by the police commissioner, in respect of workers compensation for police officers who are injured or hurt in the course of their duty. The police commissioner said, 'I can't afford that in my budget. I don't support it.' What happened? The new police commissioner comes in under the weight of public outrage about that, and the minister steps in and the government says, 'Okay, we'll change our mind. We'll do a bit of a backflip on that, we're going to support it.'

I am not unhappy that it did, but do not come in here and announce one thing at one stage about what is a policy position and then do a backflip, or then say, 'It's an operational matter.' Civilianisation of the police force is an important issue. Certainly the police commissioner has the day to day running and operation of the police force. Where was the commissioner's autonomy when the government announced just weeks ago that it was going to introduce a policy to ensure that up to one half of the new recruits on the police force were to be female?

The feminisation of the police force may be a very good policy, but where was the police commissioner in having the running and autonomy of his (in this case 'his'; one day there will be a female police commissioner, I am sure) role in determining his workforce? So, they make promises, they make commitments and then they backflip. They made a promise about police under Recruit 300 just before the 2014 election, and now, of course, they have not complied with that, they have not reached it, they got nowhere near reaching it, and the police commissioner says, 'If I've got any hope of doing it I'm going to need another $8 million a year.'

They are left with this embarrassing position of having made a promise and they have not lived up to it, so now it becomes an operational matter. Now it is his problem. That is not acceptable, because the people of South Australia were given a promise, a commitment and a policy direction and then the government just hides behind the police commissioner. Today, we are going to be debating bills in respect of the forensic responsibility of taking gunshot residue, forensic procedures and giving police new roles. Is there any extra budget for that? Not that we have heard. On the one hand, they give these obligations and autonomy and they take it back when they think something is good news and, when it is bad news, it is all the police commissioner's fault. We want some answers. We need a select committee.

I want to particularly address the new police station at Henley Beach which, of course, is one of the terms of reference of the inquiry. I cannot believe that we have a report by the Public Works Committee that was published nine months ago in this parliament supporting a new police station, in which it found that there was a need for a rebuild. It was at that time operating between 8am and 11pm seven days a week and the patrol base was operating 24 hours, seven days a week. Obviously, the infrastructure was dated, it having been established back in 1962, and it needed to have modern amenities. There were a number of reasons why that was necessary which justified spending a $5.3 million GST-exclusive allocation to do that. That was good news and important and accepted by the Public Works Committee as being necessary to facilitate the services for that district.

The coastal areas of Henley Beach, Grange, Semaphore and Glenelg are all areas where there is public amenity and 24/7 activity, where there are licensed premises operating and where there has been an encouragement for the development of vitality and socialising of those regions but, in the next breath, the government are announcing that they are going to pull back the hours and take it to a daytime service only. It is incredible. Here is what the government said on 10 March 2014 during the election campaign in announcing a new police station:

A re-elected Labor government will build a new $5.3 million police station—

Then it says:

Premier Jay Weatherill said that the new Henley Beach Police Station will boost community safety for the local area.

The new police station will increase the emergency response capability, help reduce crime and have capacity for additional police.

The member for Colton made statements in support of this, obviously, saying:

The Henley Beach area is very popular, particularly during summer, and it is important that local residents feel safe in their community.

He went on to say:

The Henley Beach Police Station has been an asset for the local community since 1962—but is not big enough to cater for our growing police force...Many local residents have told me that community safety is a concern for them, and Labor is committed to ensuring that we have a well-resourced police force with the best facilities.

Henley Beach Police Station currently has 40 staff working at the site providing a 24-hour presence.

We need it. The area is growing. The demand is there. We want more police to be there and now what is going to happen? For over 12 hours a day, it is going to get cobwebs in it. That is just not acceptable. It undermines the justification for spending the money in the first place.

We prioritise the redevelopment of facilities in growing areas of social attraction for families and young people to enjoy these amenities and then the government has cut underneath and said, 'Sorry, police commissioner, you are not going to get the extra money, you are not going to get the extra police, we are not going to make that extra provision for you. You are going to have to cut the budget.' So, what does the police commissioner do? He closes down the police station after 5 o'clock.

What are we going to do for all those restaurants and all the people who are taking alcohol and enjoying the convivial environment they are in which, unfortunately, does attract some elements that can be disruptive? What is important is that the patrons and the visitors to that area, particularly around licensed premises, need that protection. It is just unconscionable that the government goes out and makes these grandiose promises and then does not deliver on either the personnel or allowing the police commissioner to have sufficient resources to get on with his job.

In a week or so's time when we have dealt with this other legislation, he is going to have more jobs to do and, I expect, precious little resources to do it. I do not blame the police commissioner, but I do say that this parliament has to seize themselves of taking responsibility on this. The police commissioner is supported as having an autonomous role, and that is why he is a commissioner. He has independence of prosecution and independence of investigation without executive interference—all that, and we understand the reason for that.

However, the government just marches in, makes promises of support, undermines it when they fail to deliver and then blames the police commissioner, because he is then forced to reduce the service delivery that has been promised by this government. It is totally unacceptable, it needs to be investigated and I commend the member for Stuart for taking it up.

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