❓ Mr. Birney questions the Minister's refusal to disclose the percentage of understaffed police stations, citing 'operational sensitivities'. The Minister responds by stating the police force is operating above authorised strength overall, accusing Mr. Birney of not doing his homework.
AnsweredQoN 1117Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her refusal to answer my question on notice 1685, which sought to establish the percentage of police stations across Western Australia that are operating below their organised strength. (1) How can the minister possibly cite operational sensitivities as her reason for not answering, when my question did not request information about specific police stations, but rather the generic state of police stations across Western Australia - a matter of significant public interest? (2) How does the minister reconcile her refusal to answer my question with the Premier’s recent statement in this House that the Government accepts the responsibility of answering parliamentary questions? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(1) How can the minister possibly cite operational sensitivities as her reason for not answering, when my question did not request information about specific police stations, but rather the generic state of police stations across Western Australia - a matter of significant public interest? (2) How does the minister reconcile her refusal to answer my question with the Premier’s recent statement in this House that the Government accepts the responsibility of answering parliamentary questions? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(2) How does the minister reconcile her refusal to answer my question with the Premier’s recent statement in this House that the Government accepts the responsibility of answering parliamentary questions? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station.
[See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(1) How can the minister possibly cite operational sensitivities as her reason for not answering, when my question did not request information about specific police stations, but rather the generic state of police stations across Western Australia - a matter of significant public interest? (2) How does the minister reconcile her refusal to answer my question with the Premier’s recent statement in this House that the Government accepts the responsibility of answering parliamentary questions? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(2) How does the minister reconcile her refusal to answer my question with the Premier’s recent statement in this House that the Government accepts the responsibility of answering parliamentary questions? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
(1)-(2) I am very pleased that the member for Kalgoorlie has asked this question because it enables me to put some very good information on record. I will tell the House how actual strengths have compared with authorised strengths in recent months. The member for Kalgoorlie thinks he has a good point, but I suggest that he should have done his homework. Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will get to that. As at 31 August 2003, the authorised strength was 4 945 full-time equivalents, and the actual strength was 4 968.89. Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mr M.J. Birney: Why do you not answer the question I asked? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: He does not want to hear this. We are operating above authorised strength right across the State. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kalgoorlie! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The figures provided to me by the Police Service indicate that the service was operating above authorised strength in August, July, June and May. Because I have indicated that I have some very good statistics on the authorised strength compared with the actual strength in the Police Service, the member for Kalgoorlie does not want to know. I believe that the public has a right to know whether the service is operating at authorised strength. That is why I want to place on record that it is operating above authorised strength. Because of the sniping remarks of the member for Kalgoorlie and the claims that he has made to journalists, I have sought information on whether the service is operating above authorised strength. Members opposite do not like the answer, but the fact is that - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have asked for all the recent statistics on the way in which the service is operating; that is, actual strength compared with authorised strength. At the end of August, the actual strength was 4 968.89 officers compared with the authorised strength of 4 945. The July authorised strength figure was the same: 4 945. The actual strength figure was 4 970.62. Again, the authorised strength figures for May and June were the same. What was the actual strength figure? For May it was 4 956.55 - again above the authorised strength; for June it was 4 973.49 - again above the authorised strength. One must ask what more can the Government do than operate above the authorised strength of the Police Service. The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The next part of the equation is that the Commissioner of Police, who was selected by members opposite, makes the choices about where he deploys those officers. Keeping in mind that there are more police officers than the authorised strength, he then allocates them to the various districts and regions according to what he believes the operational requirements are at any given time. It is his duty and obligation to do that. People opposite cannot seriously expect the Police Service to be operating any further above the authorised strength than it is. If they have a complaint, their complaint is obviously with the Commissioner of Police and his deployment of resources. If they believe that stations or districts are operating under authorised strength and that that is a problem, they should raise that with the Commissioner of Police. Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Further, a long-term precedent set by all former Commissioners of Police and all senior police in this State has been to give information on staffing district by district, not station by station. The current commissioner adopts that same policy. To clarify matters once and for all for members opposite, I will table a letter of today’s date, 23 September, containing advice that I have received from the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and State Commander, Mr Bruce Brennan. I will table it because I believe it clarifies the Police Service’s policy. It states - With regard to the release of staffing levels at Police Stations it has been a consistent policy that due to operational sensitivities, specific information relating to staffing levels of individual police stations is not released in a public forum. Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station. That is signed by the deputy commissioner. [See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Resources are principally allocated at a District level and District Superintendents deploy these resources within their District to provide the best possible policing service to meet operational requirements and the varying needs of the community. Variations in authorised strength of a station can occur on an almost daily basis due to retirement, resignation, transfer or promotion of officers, and secondment of officers to specialist units within the Districts. Also, authorised station strength does not include specialist units for the district that may be located in the Police Station.
[See paper No 1524.] Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The questions that members opposite can legitimately ask government are whether it has provided the resources to the Police Service and whether the Police Service is operating above or below its authorised strength; and, if so, by how much. Finally, if they have a question about the deployment of those officers, they need to raise that with the Police Service. If members opposite think they know better than the Commissioner of Police, they should say so now. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Kingsley and Hillarys.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.