POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:25): I move:

That this house calls for the abolition of the Police Complaints Authority and the urgent introduction of a comprehensive, responsive and genuinely independent authority to investigate complaints relating to SAPOL.

I put at the outset that I have had some interaction with the Police Complaints Authority following the allegation of speeding against me. From my experience and that of constituents that is why I bring this motion here. I should say at the outset I am not a great critic of SAPOL. Some people have drawn that conclusion, but it is wrong. I believe our police force here is overall a very good one. I know many members of the police force, past and present, whom I regard as very fine individuals, so I am not seeking in any way to reflect on SAPOL.

It is important that in a society like ours an important agency like the police is accountable for the actions of individual members in a way which is transparent and appropriate. I do not believe that is always the case at the moment. I do not know whether members have had a chance to read the Police Complaints Authority report, which was tabled in here in September, but some of the issues that I believe need addressing—and it is not quite clear to me because I have not seen the legislation—include whether the government's recent commitment to an ICAC will address my concerns. I hope they do. I would implore the Attorney to ensure that in developing an ICAC he takes on board concerns about the Police Complaints Authority and also, I would say, the current inadequacies relating to the anticorruption branch.

Of some of the concerns I have at the moment one of them is that the Attorney himself cannot require the Police Complaints Authority to investigate anything. I think that is a deficiency. The Attorney can request the DPP to investigate. He cannot request the Police Complaints Authority to do anything. I do not think that is appropriate or adequate.

The other concerns are that the Police Complaints Authority investigations are done by the police. We know that you can have, I think they call it a China wall, and all of that sort of thing, within an organisation—some people do some things and others do other things. I think it is important in terms of perception, apart from anything else, that the police do not investigate police where a complaint is made against an individual police officer. I do not believe that is appropriate. It has been an issue in Queensland; it has been commented on by Professor Fitzgerald. I do not think it appropriate.

South Australia, as far as I understand, is the only state that does not have any body that police are accountable to. Theoretically they are accountable to the minister. I have never, apart from estimates, ever seen police, or the Police Complaints Authority, come down to be questioned. I think the commissioner came down earlier this year to a budget committee of the other place, but I think we do need a body that the police are accountable to, even though it will only be a minority of police officers who are ever subject to serious complaint.

The other concern I have is the ability and capacity of the Police Complaints Authority to investigate or to have a matter considered. They refer it to the police for investigation. One of their officers told me that they just cannot deal with all of the issues that are put to them. I am paraphrasing the words he used, but that is the bottom line. I think he said they have hundreds of complaints a year that would be listed in the annual report. So, that is another thing.

If you look in the report, you will find that many of the complaints are not pursued. The Police Complaints Authority would argue that some of them are minor, trivial, etc., but how would you know, because there is no detailed analysis, and there is no response in terms of what happens to a police officer who has not done the right thing.

I know this from firsthand experience because of the complaint about the officer I had dealings with. He was told, in future, not to record that he did something in the morning if he did not do it then but did it in the afternoon. He put down that he did his testing of his laser for the afternoon at the same time, basically, as in the morning. What I understood from Police Complaints was that he was told, 'Don't do it again.' We do not even know whether that was communicated to him, put on his record, or whatever. If you look at their annual report, who knows what happens to these people who have done the wrong thing? What has been the consequence?

Years ago, I had an experience with my middle lad, who was accused of having one of my election posters. I thought he was brighter than that. The police arrested him for having one of my election posters. People find it hard to believe but, to cut a long story short, he ended up at the old Darlington police station. This large police officer came out and said, 'Your son will end up at Yatala, he'll get raped, he'll get AIDS and he'll die.' That is what he said. I thought that was charming. My lad, who came hobbling out, said, 'Why did you report me, dad?' and I said, 'I didn't.' I said, 'What are you in here for?' and he said, 'They reckon I've got one of your posters.'

One of my campaign workers had got a bit carried away and put them up early, and the kids at the Aberfoyle Park high school social night grabbed one, the other kids ran off and my lad was left literally holding the sign. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I said to the police officer at Darlington, 'My lad is deaf. He is totally deaf in one ear and partially deaf in the other ear, and he has an issue adjusting to that because he's 15. It would be good if he could talk to a police officer who specialises in youth issues,' and I nominated Senior Sergeant John Wallace, who ran Hindley Street police station. This police officer said, 'Not that loser. His own children are in court.' As soon as he said that, I knew that he had transgressed because he had divulged information about a police officer's children having an issue in court.

It did go to court, and I remember the police officer was Brebner, the football umpire. He was a nice guy, and he said, 'What have you done, Bob, to upset the police?' I said, 'I haven't done anything. I don't know them.' Judge Newman, who was a sensible judge, threw it out and said it was a nonsense. It was disturbing but, to get back to the chase, in the police complaint I lodged about him and the other police, according to the young people they said, 'If you run off, we'll put a bullet up your arse'—pardon the French, but they were their words. Police Complaints transferred this person from Darlington to Plympton. That was his penalty for divulging information about another police officer's children being in court.

So, I do not have a lot of confidence in the Police Complaints Authority. I have had constituents come and tell me they get fobbed off. What happens, over time, is the Police Complaints say, 'It's been to court. We don't look at it. We can't look at it,' even if the matter has not been addressed in court. Not all issues are looked at in the court case. There might be some other issues that need the attention of Police Complaints and investigation. Their answer is, 'It's been looked at in court.' Then, if you go to the police, they say, 'No, the Police Complaints have looked at it and said that they won't look at it because the courts have looked at it.' It is not the case. Often the courts look at specific things and do not look at all aspects of the behaviour of a particular police officer.

In essence, what I believe we need is a body as part of the government's new ICAC that can deal with these issues. Likewise, and I have hinted at this before, I think the Anti-Corruption Branch being within the police force is inappropriate. I contacted the police commissioner because someone had leaked a letter I wrote to the police minister, and someone thought that it related to my speeding issue. It did not. It was irrelevant and the result of complaints by residents. That letter appeared in an article in The Advertiser written by Michael Owen. The Anti-Corruption Branch was asked to investigate. They never spoke to my staff, but they rang me and said, 'One of your staff would have leaked it because it was on your letterhead.' It was on my letterhead because I was writing on behalf of constituents. I think the officer's surname was Lovegrove. That was the sum total of the investigation, so that was a pretty unsatisfactory thing.

Recently, I spoke to Michael Owen. I said, 'Michael, I know you can't divulge your sources but can you tell me anything about that article you wrote where someone had leaked a letter to you?' He said, 'I can tell you this, it didn't come from any of your staff.' So it could only have come from the police or the police minister's office, and I do not believe the police minister or his staff would have leaked it. Anti-Corruption did not even interview my staff; just accused them of leaking it and I thought that was outrageous. I do not believe they are the appropriate body to investigate other police, either.

In South Australia we have a problem. I think it is, overall, a fine police force, but we need to have a mechanism in place to ensure that the behaviour of the small number of police officers who do not do the right thing is dealt with appropriately, transparently and efficiently. I do not believe that is the case, hence my motion to the parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms R. Sanderson.