HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Legislative Review Committee: Police (Police Security Officers) Amendment Regulations 2022

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (11:05): I move:

That the report of the committee, on the inquiry into Police (Police Security Officers) Amendment Regulations 2022, be noted.

For context, police security officers (PSOs) are critical to the SAPOL frontline workforce, adding additional capacity and often alleviating pressure by performing a number of duties currently undertaken by police officers. The report, through the Legislative Review Committee, that accompanied the regulations advised that these regulations were drafted to support a transition from protective security officers to PSOs. As part of the reforms, PSOs can be assigned additional duties and are granted increased powers when conducting those additional duties.

To understand the possible impacts upon the public, the committee sought and received the views of the Law Society of South Australia, the Legal Services Commission of South Australia and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. These organisations provided oral or written evidence on the Police (Police Security Officers) Amendment Regulations 2022. It should be noted that the committee did not decide to place a holding motion against these regulations and they are already in effect. That said, a subsequent report has been prepared and, on behalf of the committee, I ask that it be noted by the house today.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (11:06): I rise to speak on this report that was pretty briskly gone through by the member for Playford. I want to highlight to the house some of the issues that the committee had brought up in terms of these regulations. It really does reflect a rushed process and a lack of awareness about some of the challenges that this regulation brings to the impingement on personal rights and the opportunity for someone who is much less trained than an ordinary police officer to have the same powers as a police officer.

The committee heard evidence that a number of the provisions in the amendment regulations are beyond the scope of the act that they apply to and are inappropriate for enactment by the executive through regulations. The amendment regulations provide that a PSO with much less training than a police officer has the same powers as a police officer. As the member for Playford highlighted, we did hear evidence in that committee from a number of legal representatives from around South Australia about their concerns about what powers these regulations actually give to police security officers. It does mean that the power of arrest is in the hands of someone who has only received 13 weeks of training.

We who have looked closely at the training regulations and obligations that police officers have know that there is significant training that goes on, and rightly so. These are people who are doing the good work of keeping our communities safe but doing it in a way that is legal and able to be relied on by our community. To have police security officers having these same rights of arrest raised concerns by those legal representatives, and this is why we, particularly as members of the committee, wanted to highlight that in the committee report. You can get a situation where an individual, including a minor, can be arrested by a relatively untrained PSO, and they are not entitled to the same fundamental rights mandated to protect a person being arrested by a police officer.

We heard from witnesses to the committee that the act does not contemplate providing PSOs with the same powers that are bestowed upon police officers, particularly the power of arrest. These extra powers that were given through these regulations also gave the opportunity for any other additional powers as seen fit by someone with the standing above, e.g. the police commissioner, to give police security officers any more powers.

I understand that PSOs do good work in our community. I do understand that the police minister and this government are relying on them as a stopgap in the short term while they are more than 200 police officers down on their standing force. Make no mistake, a PSO should not be doing the role of a police officer.

The extra powers that are given to a PSO, the lessened responsibility for the rights of people being detained by a PSO, have been highlighted to our committee. I am surprised at this point that we have not had any action from the government. This is something that needs to be fixed up. Either they believe that they are right and the legal advice that the committee heard is wrong, and they are going to ignore the committee, or they believe this needs to be changed and fixed up so it better reflects the legislation this regulation applies to.

The committee agreed that the abrogation of these rights by the amendment regulations trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties. In looking at this report, there is a clear direction and a clear recommendation for action. I hope those who have the ability to fix up this mistake, whether it is the police minister or the Attorney-General, really take into consideration all the evidence that the committee has noted in this fulsome report.

As specified in the section of the Police Act that it refers to, additional duties should be set out in regulations, sure, but there needs to be more scrutiny, especially from the parliament and the associated committees rather than special orders made by the commissioner. The opportunity for a commissioner to make special orders for additional powers for a police security officer lacks a level of transparency and public accountability, which is really necessary to make sure we garner confidence within our police force.

Police security officers have not had the same level of training as members of our police force. They are not sufficiently trained to exercise arrest rights and their powers should not be extended beyond the limited power to detain, which existed under the previous legislative arrangements for protective security officers.

The recommendations within this report are fulsome, as I said. The committee went through a well-structured and properly followed process. The recommendations that follow should not just be ignored by this government, they should be acted upon.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (11:12): I was not intending to make a contribution, but I think—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Preparations are being made for the minister to conform to the standing orders.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I have almost been a minister longer than you have.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I apologise for my disorderly conduct. I was not going to make a contribution, but I think it is important that, as a minister in the government, I do so overtly, despite the contribution from the member for Flinders, and commit our full support for the police commissioner. This is a worrying accusation that the police commissioner is—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Flinders!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This is a worrying accusation from the member for Flinders, who was a member of this committee, that the police are improperly exercising or the police commissioner is unfairly and improperly exercising his prerogative.

Mr Telfer: I did not say that at all.

The SPEAKER: Member for Flinders, order!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I would also say and remind the member for Flinders that the enabling legislation for this reform was actually undertaken by the former Liberal government—undertaken by the former Liberal government—one that we were very proud to support in opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I also, on behalf of the hardworking sworn police security officers around the state, including those who are protecting us in this building as we speak, will overtly move our government away from any accusation that they are not properly trained, that they are not capable, that they are not professional, that they are not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It would be—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It would be much to the relief of the member for Flinders to know—in fact, it may be some surprise to him, based upon his contribution to this debate—that a sworn police security officer is not a police officer. They are two distinct roles and two very important functions; in fact, so important that this government acted decisively to commit through an extra $80 million of funding the employment of 189 sworn police security officers. They play an important role, they are well trained, they are well led by the police commissioner. We certainly as a government trust the exercise of the prerogative that the police commissioner has, both under the act and as an outstanding leader in this state.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:15): I rise just to indicate I really do commend this motion to the house. I really hope that it does attract the support, unanimously, of members of this place. The motion moved by the member for Playford indeed brings to the attention of the house the report of the Legislative Review Committee. Far from some unnecessary political characterisation and all this that we just heard from the minister, the job of the Legislative Review Committee is to highlight where matters that ought to be dealt with by other means than by regulation are done so, and they are brought to the attention of the house so that if it is necessary and appropriate the house can legislate.

As the member for Flinders has highlighted—and, indeed, as a member of the Legislative Review Committee who has joined in the work of the member for Playford and other members of the Legislative Review Committee—the concerns that the work of the committee has elicited from no less than the Law Society, the Legal Services Commission, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement are legitimate concerns about the administration of justice. Sure, they might go to the merits of structures being put in place, but at its core this is about analysis of what is appropriate to be dealt with by way of regulation and what ought to have the scrutiny of this place.

It is interesting that the attention of the minister has been piqued by this spotlight being shone on what the member for Playford has quite rightly highlighted are regulations that are already in place. Unlike the motions that have been brought earlier in this short moment, the Legislative Review Committee has the opportunity to put in place the relevant motion to disallow—and then, in this case, undertake not one, not two, not three, this is the fourth of them—reports setting out the reasons why.

This one stands out, and therefore it is at the government's feet, unusually, in that the regulations have been made, they are in force, and the issues that are arising are now very much matters of executive responsibility to determine. Let there be no doubt about it, I am sure the house will not be fooled for a moment by these sorts of attempts to characterise or to smear either the capacity and integrity of the commissioner or, indeed, the important work of PSOs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The responsibility of the executive government is to regulate within the law and to regulate in the best interests of all the people of South Australia in terms of the disposition of the administration of justice—that includes the process by which individual citizens might find themselves arrested, as the Legislative Review Committee has rightly pointed out.

I commend the motion to the house. I hope that it sees hasty passage through this place so that members of the House of Assembly can indeed note the report. I think all eyes will then be on the executive, and the minister in particular, to see what is going to be done to address this particular problem that is very much lying at the government's feet at present.

Motion carried.

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