Police Complaints and Discipline Bill | SPEECH

27Sep

Second Reading

(Continued from 6 July 2016)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN ( Stuart ) ( 17:09 :52 ): It is my pleasure to rise not only as the member for Stuart on behalf of the people I represent but also as shadow minister for police to speak on the Police Complaints and Discipline Bill. I listened with interest to the contribution of our deputy leader, who is our lead speaker on this bill as shadow attorney-general, and agree with everything she has said so far—there is no doubt about that—and appreciate the member for Napier’s contribution as well.

The member for Bragg covered a lot of issues; I will not go back over all of them, but I will say that she deserves a fair bit of credit for the fact that this is here with us today because, while the government has said for a very long time that it was working on bringing forward this bill, it did drag for a very long time. The member for Bragg, the shadow attorney-general, actually said, ‘I will put forward one of my own,’ which is exactly what she did. She did the homework and did the work and came prepared with her bill, and that has significantly sped up the government in this area, and I think that is quite important.

For everybody outside this place who has been waiting for this bill, or a bill similar to this, to come forward and has also thought that it has taken too long, they can thank the member for Bragg for helping speed up the process. We in opposition support this bill in principle. We have no hesitation in doing that. We reserve our right to bring forward some amendments of our own and also to support or not support the amendments that have already been brought forward, and we will take those into serious consideration between the houses.

The broad thrust of what the government wants to do in this bill is certainly something that we in the opposition support without any doubt whatsoever. I am aware, as all members here would be, that the Police Association, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the government and the opposition have all been working in the background with regard to what adjustments it might be sensible to make to the existing bill. The transition from the Office of the Police Ombudsman to ICAC seems a fait accompli, and I will briefly read an extract from the foreword to the report released just a few weeks ago:

The next 12 months will probably see the closure of the OPO and the transition of operations to the ICAC. I anticipate that there will be a tension between the need for the OPO to operate efficiently until that transition occurs and the need for staff within the office to seek alternative employment prior to that transition. It may well be the case that some very experienced and capable staff will leave the office to seek other opportunities with the result that the efficient day to day running of the office may suffer to some extent. That situation will pose a challenge over the coming months.

While we all seem, in principle, to support the move and the transition, of course, as the Ombudsman has made clear in that part of the foreword, it will be very important for us to make sure that the transition is managed effectively.

Apart from the obvious, which is that any such transition needs to be managed effectively, the issues that the Office of the Police Ombudsman deal with and those that the ICAC will probably deal with are exceptionally important matters, and they are important for many reasons. They are important because they are at the heart of our justice system and at the heart of our policing system, but they are also incredibly important to the individual people who are caught up in the issues that are being investigated/considered. These matters are of extreme importance to everybody involved. Whether it be a police officer who might be being investigated or a member of the public who has a claim that he or she has brought forward, this transition will have to be dealt with extreme carefully.

I just want to turn briefly to the subject of internal investigations. It does not matter what the organisation, the general public is uncomfortable or perhaps a bit sceptical of any organisation that investigates itself; whether it were a police disciplinary tribunal, or members of parliament investigating themselves, or whether it were the Scouts, it would not matter. Whilst of course internal investigations have their place, they are usually sceptically viewed by outsiders and by members of the public. That is something that no doubt the government has considered, and the opposition has certainly considered, with regard to its consideration of this bill and the broader question of the transition.

By way of example, I turn again to the Police Ombudsman’s report released a couple of weeks ago. The Ombudsman makes it very clear that there are concerns that exist within that office in relation to the police and the exercise of police powers of arrest and powers to search premises, persons and vehicles with regard to the power of the Commissioner of Police to deal promptly with breaches of discipline. There are concerns about the overzealous enforcement of the Firearms Act, and complaints more generally, with regard to the excessive use of force.

Let me also say very clearly that there are slightly more than 4,500 police officers in the South Australian police. With that large number of people working in any organisation, it is not surprising that they would not all go about their duties in a perfect manner, that they would not all go about their duties in a way that the public, or the commissioner, or the government, or members of parliament would accept. In fairness, we have an absolutely outstanding police force in South Australia.

We have a police force which year after year is regarded by the South Australian public more highly than other police forces are regarded around Australia by people who live in those various states. We have an outstanding police force, but it is not perfect, and every year there are examples of situations where police officers have acted inappropriately, and that is why this bill is so important, and that is why getting it right is so important.

I will share a brief outline of a case study that highlights how the system we have in place at the moment, which is a combination of authorities (including the courts) to look into issues, really has not delivered the results we would expect. I use the case of a constable who, back in December 2012, treated two homeless men in a park in Adelaide completely inappropriately, and who yet with a range of investigations will still not be properly dealt with by the Police Disciplinary Tribunal until a hearing that will come about in January 2017—that is, December 2012 through to January 2017, when the next hearing will look at that matter of alleged inappropriate behaviour.

In the meantime, there has been another allegation of inappropriate behaviour against the same officer apparently for, at the very least, bad-tempered treatment of a member of the public. December 2012 to January 2017 is completely unacceptable, and if that process had been dealt with efficiently and expediently, and in a much more timely fashion, it is very likely that the second allegation would never have arisen, and that might be for a range of reasons.

It might be because the officer, if it was found that he acted inappropriately in the first instance, was given counselling, was given training, was given advice, was given whatever was necessary so that he could pursue his career without seemingly running foul of what the public would consider to be appropriate behaviour the second time. It might be that he was found to be completely innocent. It might be, as is suggested by the Ombudsman, that his state of mind was not that which we would consider consistent with being able to discharge his duties as a police officer.

There are a whole range of potential outcomes if this had been dealt with properly the first time. I use that as an example of why we have to get this right, why we have to get this bill amended in a way that gives comfort to the public and all police officers that they are being dealt with properly. It needs to be efficient, it needs to be thorough, it needs to be open minded and it needs to be timely.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposals that the Police Association has put forward, but I think it is also important to say that I would not automatically accept that what the Police Association puts forward as the right way for police officers to be investigated if it seems that they have acted inappropriately will not automatically be the way this parliament will choose to settle on the legislation as well. The Police Association will have insight that we do not have. The Police Association will have suggestions that will be very important for us to consider, but the Police Association, representing police officers, may also not have exactly the suggestions the parliament sees fit to pursue.

We from opposition will look at this extremely closely between the houses. We are more than happy to support the bill in this place because we all agree on the principles. We will come back in another place with the support or otherwise for the amendments that have been put forward and quite possibly some other amendments of our own.