Police Complaints and Discipline Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 July 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:44): I rise to speak on the Police Complaints and Discipline Bill 2016. Again, this is a bill that has been introduced subsequent to substantial investigation and inquiry and lengthy recommendations presented for consideration in reviewing the manner in which we deal with police complaints. The gestation period of review is so long I can hardly remember when it started, but I will endeavour to find my notes on this.

What I do know is that, as a result of there being a comprehensive inquiry, the opposition took the lead to introduce the Police Complaints Bill 2016 when we had heard nothing from the government as to the advance of a new system. That bill remains in Private Members Business. As I have indicated, now that the government has finally produced this bill, we will agree to consider its advancement. If successful, once passed, this bill will produce a new regime for dealing with police complaints and, in those circumstances, I indicate that I will withdraw my bill.

The complaint procedure in respect of police conduct has had a bit of a rocky road in recent years. It is true that we had a police complaints commissioner, then we had a Police Ombudsman and currently we have an Acting Police Ombudsman. They provide annual reports to us here in the parliament, as do most other integrity bodies. However, even from their own reports, it is clear that they have identified flaws in the way that complaints have been dealt with on occasions and the failure for them to actually be progressed in a manner which is acceptable, mainly to the complainants.

When this happens, it sometimes brings these institutions into disrepute, sometimes unfairly. However, what is absolutely critical is that we have a process or a scheme governing the making of complaints about public administration and the oversight of police conduct that the public respect. If it fails then that can be very concerning because the last thing any of us want is for our police to be undermined and the confidence of the public to be diminished in their operations.

In short, the laws governing police complaints were proving to be inefficient and clearly in need of reform. Members might want to view the annual report of the SA Police Ombudsman 2013-14 by Ms Sarah Bolt. That report painted a very negative picture, stating that the Office of the Police Ombudsman was unable to perform its functions and role efficiently and effectively. It was apparent the relationship between the OPO, ICAC and the Office of Public Integrity could be improved.

Some of that relates to the fact that there had been the mushrooming of other public integrity agencies and sometimes there would be the question of overlap. As members would know, we have a State Ombudsman who largely deals with complaints in the public sector area. In recent years, we have had a separate ombudsman regime for health and community complaints, and they cover not just public sector agencies but also the independent sector and non-government sector. However, for all relevant periods we have had a separate agency to deal with police complaints.

I think everyone shares a view in this house that, particularly given the nature of police work regarding the accumulation and use of criminal intelligence, the need to keep information securely stored and to ensure that there is not any breach of information to be released that might otherwise affect the lawful investigation and prosecution of cases, it is necessary that the police have a separate complaints agency, and I fully endorse that.

Apart from Ms Bolt saying herself as Police Ombudsman that all is not happy in Rome and that we need to have some reform, the Attorney-General also had requested Commissioner Lander from ICAC to conduct an inquiry into the oversight and management of complaints about police, and generally about the receipt and assessment of complaints and reports about public administration. He reported to the parliament on 2 July 2015.

Additionally, the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee heard submissions from the South Australian Ombudsman, Mr Wayne Lines, in March 2015 in which he outlined that legislative change would be required to reduce duplication and inefficiencies in the receipt, assessment and resolution of complaints for public administration. They reported on 30 June 2015.

It was apparent from many inefficiencies resulting from the misdirecting of serious complaints between the Ombudsman and the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the matter of who owns responsibility for these complaints that we had a problem in the efficiency and effective delivery of the process and we had an overlap which needed to be sorted out.

The recommendations in respect of police complaints by Mr Lander were quite substantial. The recommendations in respect of other public administration were considerable, but I need to just state that the ICAC report in the conduct of his review reported on 22 July 2015 with 29 recommendations including the rewriting of the police complaints legislation, the abolition of the Police Ombudsman, bringing police oversight within the Office of Public Integrity and giving South Australia Police, via the commissioner, the primary responsibility of assessment of complaints and reports about police.

The bill that I have referred to as a private member's bill largely incorporated the recommendations of Mr Lander. The government took the view that they had prepared this bill based largely on the recommendations of Mr Lander. One would think that that would crystallise into some prompt agreement into accepting this bill, but herein lies the problem which, in short, reflects the fact that we get told one thing and then we find out that the situation is very different.

The Police Complaints and Discipline Bill we are currently discussing was issued in a draft and at first blush appeared to pretty much cover matters raised by Mr Lander. There were significant areas of omission but there was some level of consistency. We then find, in July this year, that the Police Association of South Australia, being the union for a significant number of the police force, was very unhappy with the terms of the bill. The thing it was most unhappy about was the fact that it had been shown one bill and what turned up in the parliament was something very different.

This then raises a question of trust. It raises the question of being able to rely on the government that, when it says something, it can be taken as accurate. It undermines our capacity, as legislators, to rely on the government to do what it actually says it will do. The government's own stakeholders in this case, is a body which clearly has a very significant interest in this bill because it relates to how complaints about their members are going to be dealt with and also what disciplinary action should be taken in respect of those.

That is not to say that the union for the police officers needs to have some sort of controlling contribution over how this structure should operate because the police commissioner, during the course of the reviews, gave evidence about his view as to how these things should be managed and there is no question that Mr Lander's approach was somewhat different, not hugely different but somewhat different.

This bill, reflecting Mr Lander's approach that there be some continued supervision of the smaller complaints to be dealt with through the police commissioner's structure as such, could be accommodated. We are not saying that, just because the Police Association represents members that are going to be managed through this bill say something should happen, that should happen. It is just very concerning to us when it appears that a level of goodwill is undermined by concerns that information has not been fully forthcoming and that when we are told that there is comprehensive consultation we find that there are aspects of this that have not even been discussed, or claim not to have been discussed by the Attorney-General. It is very disturbing.

In general principle, we accept that some of the more minor matters can be dealt with internally, just like they are in the education department. If there is a complaint about a particular matter in a local school, there is a process of complaint through the education department and, if it is not resolved, then of course there are other options, for example going to the Ombudsman's office.

If there was a complaint that a police officer did not attend, within the regulated time, a residence when a complaint was lodged about a suspected break-in, that might be something that needs some explanation. It may warrant an apology to the householder, but it would not necessarily mean that we would need to have a file opened down at the Police Ombudsman's office. Clearly, however, if more serious matters are raised then we need to have those matters viewed and considered and determined and acted upon by someone who is absolutely independent of the police force, including from the commissioner's office.

We agree that there should be a separate and revised police complaints structure and we agree that minor matters could be dealt with internally within the police force via the commissioner. Otherwise, the matter should be under the scrutiny and gatekeeping of the Office for Public Integrity. We need to have a structure that will give a fair determination for the complainants, and maintain the respect of the public and the police force, and also ensure that a police officer who is exercising a duty or failing to exercise a duty that requires some discipline is brought to attention and acted upon.

When I read the Police Ombudsman's report for this financial year concluding in June 2016, it was with a good deal of concern that I read of the number of complaints that had been raised against the conduct of police officers; one of them was the concern of the Police Ombudsman that have there had been repeated searches of motor vehicles by police officers without having formed the requisite intent for that purpose.

He made statements in this year's report about his concern about that occurring on multiple occasions and, furthermore, that he had made the same complaints in the previous year's annual report, so it is not as though we do not need to have a complaints procedure. We also need to make sure as a parliament that, whatever the structure, if the Ombudsman brings to our attention some action or inaction on the part of the police that is not acceptable—especially if it is two years in a row—we do something about it, that the Minister for Police does something about it, that the cabinet does something about it and, as I say, if necessary, that the parliament does something about it.

All these things require that there will be some action and consequence for unacceptable conduct. I say to the parliament that if the Minister for Police does not give a satisfactory response to matters that are raised by the Police Ombudsman to this parliament, we should be asking the minister to make some account for that. It is not acceptable that these agencies, as integrity bodies, report to us and then nothing happens about it. That is not acceptable. In any event, I will not go through all the issues that have been raised, but often there is quite a number.

I think it is fair to say that when we look at last year's annual report we see the shocking revelations of conduct towards a young Aboriginal man by a police officer and what was described by the Police Ombudsman as being a completely inadequate response by the then commissioner of police in sending the police officer away for some retraining program—a completely inadequate response to the conduct of that police officer towards the young man in question. Shocking threats were made; I do not need to detail them all again, but I make the point that, unless there is some follow up on these things, then all these new structures mean nothing.

I urge members to keep our ministers accountable as well when they have considered reports from our officers of integrity—in this case, the Police Ombudsman. We have an acting ombudsman at the moment, and I am assuming he will not be replaced until there is a new structure in place anticipated by this legislation. We have some amendments which have apparently been developed and tabled by the Attorney to cover a number of outstanding issues which I understand have at least been agreed to between the Police Association and Mr Lander's office as reflecting the review's recommendations. I am advised that at the very least the Police Association has other concerns about matters that have been omitted or are inadequately described even in these amendments. We will hear further from them in between the houses.

This bill has been a long time coming, so I am certainly not going to hold it up. From our perspective on this side of the house, we will support the passage of the bill through this parliament. We will receive these amendments and reserve our right to make further amendments when the bill is dealt with in another place.

Mr GEE (Napier) (17:05): Today, I speak to the Police Complaints and Discipline Bill 2016. I will just take some people back to refresh their memory about what the bill was about. The bill was introduced in response to ICAC recommendations to replace the Police Ombudsman with the Office for Public Integrity, to streamline processes relating to the management of police complaints and disciplinary matters and otherwise largely not disturb the role of the Commissioner of Police as it presently exists in relation to such matters.

I am confident that this bill will improve the way in which complaints made of police officers may be readily and properly managed. However, in introducing this bill, it will see the dissolution of the Office of the Police Ombudsman. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Office of the Police Ombudsman. The Office of the Police Ombudsman is set up under the current Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act, which was first introduced in 1985.

It is interesting to note that the office was set up not in response to any public need or questioning of the professionalism of our South Australian police, which should not be any surprise. I believe that our police in South Australia act with integrity, and I believe that the community should be very proud of the men and women who protect us every day. In fact, I understand that South Australia was one of the last Australian jurisdictions to introduce a police ombudsman. I believe we may have done so eventually in light of the public perception in other jurisdictions that there were concerns relating to their police, and so there was a growing desire that there be a civilian oversight with respect to police.

The fact that this public perception did not exist in South Australia in 1985 and, in my opinion, does not exist in any real or proper measure today, perhaps reflects a longstanding professionalism of SA Police and the high standing they have amongst our community. I believe the Office of the Police Ombudsman over the years since 1985 has served us well. I thank the Police Ombudsman and staff for their work. However, as acknowledged on the Police Ombudsman's website, I quote:

The system established by the [current] Act is both definitive and complex; it deliberately follows the model of 'external monitoring of internal investigation,' rather than creating a truly independent investigative agency. The Act creates and defines the functions of the Internal Investigation Section…of SAPOL as the entity responsible for the primary investigation of complaints, subject to the oversight of the Office of the Police Ombudsman. It is a clear expectation of the Act that the majority of investigations will be conducted by [the Internal Investigation Section], and this has been the practice since the Act was introduced.

The aim of this bill is to review some of these complexities and use this opportunity to streamline it to the best extent reasonably possible. The other change in circumstances since 1985 is of course the introduction of the ICAC, the Office for Public Integrity. In such circumstances, and as proposed by this bill, the role of the Police Ombudsman may now properly be replaced with the ICAC and the Office for Public Integrity.

This also makes sense in the broader context of the role of the ICAC in relation to investigations into corruption and serious or system maladministration or misconduct in public in public administration. The reforms introduced in this bill are not only necessary only for the improvement of the management complaints but, as I have previously mentioned, they are also necessary in light of the introduction of the Office for Public Integrity and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption in recent years. I am sure that the changes made in this bill will further enhance confidence in the South Australian police and the processes that are in place to investigate any complaints that may be made in the future. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:09): 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.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:22): I want to thank everyone who has made a contribution in this debate. So that members are clear on where we have got to, there was a lengthy process involving Commissioner Lander, where he had negotiations with the Police Association and the police commissioner. The bill was drafted on the basis of our understanding of the outcome of those discussions.

However, it is the case that there have been further thoughts on the part of a number of parties about that matter, and most of those thoughts are now contained in the amendments which stand in my name and which have been filed in this matter. I should say to members that there remain one or two matters which are outstanding in the nature of matters which are not predominantly between the Office for Public Integrity and either the police commissioner or PASA, but matters which are predominantly between PASA and the police commissioner and do not specifically or necessarily cause issues for the OPI.

As recently as yesterday, I have had conversations with Mr Carroll from PASA and Commissioner Stevens. I indicated to them that between the houses I would like to have an opportunity to meet with them with a view to our coming to an agreed position between them, which hopefully will mean that there will be a few other government amendments in the Legislative Council, but I think they will be confined to those issues.

These amendments, which are now here and filed in my name, represent the bulk of the amendments the government will be moving in this matter but, in order to see this bill progress, because there is no good reason to leave it sitting here, I intend in committee to move all of the amendments standing in my name and then, between the houses, to continue conversations with the Commissioner of Police, Mr Lander and Mr Carroll with a view to resolving any remaining issues.

I am led to believe there are not many issues, perhaps one or two. I will attempt to resolve those between the houses and that might, as I said, involve one or two further government amendments in the other place. I think the process has been working well so far, and I thank everyone for their contributions and look forward to our progressing these matters now in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 7, line 31 [clause 6(4)]—After 'officers' insert 'the ICAC and the OPI'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 8, lines 16 to 19—Delete clause 9 and substitute:

9—Complainant and police officer to be kept informed of progress of complaint

(1) Subject to this section, the Commissioner must, except in the case of a complaint that is investigated by the ICAC under section 30, cause—

(a) the complainant in relation to a complaint; and

(b) each police officer who is the subject of a complaint,

to be informed of the progress and resolution of the complaint.

(2) Subject to this section, if a complaint is investigated by the ICAC under section 30, the ICAC must, in accordance with the requirements set out in the regulations, cause—

(a) the complainant in relation to the complaint; and

(b) each police officer who is the subject of the complaint,

to be informed of the progress and resolution of the complaint.

(3) However, the Commissioner or the ICAC need not keep a police officer who is the subject of a complaint so informed if—

(a) the complaint is a complaint referred to in section 15; or

(b) the Commissioner or the ICAC (as the case requires) is of the opinion that—

(i) so informing the police officer would prejudice the investigation of the complaint; or

(ii) the complaint raises a potential issue of corruption in public administration that could be the subject of a prosecution.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 9, line 19 [clause 12(1)]—Delete 'suspects on reasonable grounds' and substitute:

'reasonably suspects'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 7 [clause 14(1)]—After 'report' insert 'received by or'

Amendment No 5 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 15 [clause 14(1)]—Delete 'and recommendations must be made to the OPI accordingly'

Amendment No 6 [AG–1]—

Page 10, lines 20 and 21 [clause 14(2)(b)]—Delete 'or the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985' and substitute:

', the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 or the Police Act 1998'

Amendment No 7 [AG–1]—

Page 10, after line 29—Insert:

(4) If a particular complaint is assessed as being a complaint referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (c), the officer in charge of the IIS must, in a manner and form determined by the OPI, notify the OPI of that fact.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 8 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 35 [clause 15(a)]—After '1985' insert ', the Police Act 1998'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 9 [AG–1]—

Page 11, line 23 to page 12, line 3—Delete clause 17 and substitute:

17—Further matters relating to operation of Part

(1) The Governor may, by regulation—

(a) specify the kinds of complaints, reports and conduct that should, or should not, be the subject of a determination under section 16; and

(b) set out procedures for dealing with matters under this Part (including, to avoid doubt, making provision for the conciliation of complaints); and

(c) make further provisions relating to the operation of this Part.

(2) The Commissioner must, in respect of the operation of this Part, have regard to, and seek to give effect to, the following principles:

(a) the purpose of a management resolution under this Part is to avoid formal disciplinary proceedings by dealing with the matter as a question of educating, and improving the future conduct of, the police officer concerned;

(b) management resolution of matters under this Part is to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and without undue formality.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 10 [AG–1]—

Page 12, lines 7 and 8 [clause 18(1)]—Delete '(including any arrangement entered into under section 17)'

Amendment No 11 [AG–1]—

Page 12, line 28 to page 13, line 8 [clause 18(4), (5) and (6)]—Delete subclauses (4), (5) and (6) and substitute:

(4) In the course of a management resolution under this Part, the Commissioner may take action, or order the taking of action, of 1 or more of the following kinds in respect of the police officer:

(a) impose a restriction on the ability of the police officer to work in a specified position, or to perform specified duties, within SA Police;

(b) remove, or impose conditions on, any accreditation, permit or authority granted by SA Police to the police officer;

(c) provide the police officer with counselling;

(d) issue the police officer with a reprimand.

(5) However, the Commissioner may only take action of the kind referred to in subsection (4)(a) or (b) if he or she is satisfied that—

(a) the action is appropriate in order to—

(i) provide an opportunity for the police officer to undertake remedial education or training; or

(ii) establish that the police officer is competent and capable of carrying out specified duties; and

(b) it is appropriate in all of the circumstances to take the action, having considered—

(i) the potential impact of the action on the police officer concerned; and

(ii) the risks to other members of SA Police and the community of not taking such action.

(6) If the Commissioner takes action of the kind referred to in subsection (4)(a) or (b), the Commissioner must—

(a) advise the police officer of the remedial education or training to be undertaken, and the competencies (if any) required to be demonstrated before the relevant action will be revoked; and

(b) provide remedial education or training, and an opportunity to demonstrate the required competencies, to the police officer as soon as may be reasonably practicable.

(7) The Commissioner must revoke any action taken under subsection (4)(a) or (b) if—

(a) the police officer successfully completes the required remedial education or training and has demonstrated to the Commissioner that the police officer is competent and capable of carrying out specified duties; or

(b) a period of 6 months has elapsed since the action was taken,

whichever occurs first.

(8) Information obtained in the course of a management resolution under this Part is not to be used in relation to a prescribed determination relating to the police officer concerned.

(9) However, subsection (8) does not apply to information referred to in that subsection if the Commissioner is of the opinion that—

(a) the police officer has engaged in a pattern of unsatisfactory conduct (whether the conduct is of the same kind or of different kinds) or unsatisfactory performance (as contemplated by section 46 of the Police Act 1998); and

(b) it is appropriate for the information to be used in relation to a prescribed determination relating to the police officer, having first sought and considered any views of the police officer as to the use of the information.

(10) On completion of a management resolution under this Part, the resolution officer must inform the police officer concerned and the person who made the relevant complaint, report or allegation of the outcome of the management resolution.

(11) In this section—

prescribed determination means—

(a) a determination relating to the promotion or transfer of a police officer (whether on application or otherwise); and

(b) a determination relating to an award of a medal or other accolade (however described); and

(c) any other determination prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 12 [AG–1]—

Page 14, lines 20 and 21 [clause 21(7)]—Delete 'of the particulars of the matter under investigation' and substitute:

of—

(a) the time and place at which the conduct is alleged to have occurred; and

(b) the nature of the alleged conduct.

Amendment No 13 [AG–1]—

Page 14, after line 21—Insert:

(7a) Subsection (7)(a) does not apply if the time and place at which the conduct is alleged to have occurred is not known.

(7b) Subsection (7) does not apply if the member of IIS is of the opinion that so informing the officer may prejudice the investigation.

Amendment No 14 [AG–1]—

Page 15, lines 12 to 14 [clause 21(14)]—Delete subclause (14)

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 15 [AG–1]—

Page 15, lines 23 to 28 [clause 22(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) The Commissioner need not comply with subsection (2) where the Commissioner is satisfied that to do so would unduly delay any action to be taken in respect of the matter.

(3a) The Commissioner must, on commencing proceedings for a breach of discipline, provide to the police officer concerned a written notice indicating the punishment that the Commissioner would be likely to impose if the breach of discipline were proved on the basis of the facts as known to the Commissioner at the time the notice of allegation is presented.

(3b) The notice referred to in subsection (3a) must not be provided to the Tribunal in any proceedings under this Part.

Amendment No 16 [AG–1]—

Page 15, lines 32 to 34 [clause 22(6)]—Delete subclause (6)

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 17 [AG–1]—

Page 18, after line 39—Insert:

(3) The officer in charge of the IIS must, as soon as is reasonably practicable (but in any event within 7 days) after becoming aware of a substituted assessment under subsection (1)(b), cause the information required by the regulations in respect of the substituted assessment to be recorded on the complaint management system.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 29 to 31 passed.

Clause 32.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 18 [AG–1]—

Page 19, lines 40 and 41 [clause 32(1)]—Delete '(other than a decision in respect of a preliminary, interlocutory or procedural matter)'

Amendment No 19 [AG–1]—

Page 20, lines 1 to 6 [clause 32(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) An appeal may not be made under subsection (1) in respect of a preliminary, interlocutory or procedural matter unless—

(a) the appeal relates to a decision by the Tribunal to grant a stay of proceedings or to refuse to grant a stay of proceedings; or

(b) the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons why it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to have the appeal determined before the commencement or completion of the trial and grants its permission for an appeal.

(2a) A police officer may appeal to the Court against an order of the Commissioner imposing a sanction on the police officer under section 26.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 33 and 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 20 [AG–1]—

Page 21, line 23 [clause 35(7)]—After 'by' insert 'the police officer concerned and a person nominated by'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 36 to 42 passed.

Clause 43.

The CHAIR: We are looking at clause 43, but the amendment actually removes it. As long as Hansard is with us, that is all that matters.

Clause deleted.

Clauses 44 and 45 passed.

Clause 46.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 22 [AG–1]—

Page 24, after line 37 [clause 46(2)]—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) if the information relates to the person and is disclosed by the person to a close family member of the person; or

Amendment No 23 [AG–1]—

Page 25, after line 18—After subsection (3) insert:

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da), a person is a close family member of another person if—

(a) 1 is a spouse of the other or is in a close personal relationship with the other; or

(b) 1 is a parent or grandparent of the other (whether by blood or by marriage); or

(c) 1 is a brother or sister of the other (whether by blood or by marriage); or

(d) 1 is a guardian or carer of the other.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 47 and 48 passed.

New clause 48A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 24 [AG–1]—

Page 26, after line 14—Insert:

48A—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be conducted and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister.

(2) The review and the report must be completed before the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

New clause inserted.

Clause 49.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 25 [AG–1]—

Page 26, after line 25 [clause 49(2)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) make provisions facilitating the proof of matters in proceedings under this Act; and

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 26 [AG–1]—

Page 29, lines 1 to 13 [Schedule 1, clause 15]—Delete clause 15

Amendment No 27 [AG–1]—

Page 39, line 4 [Schedule 1, clause 54(1)]—Delete 'repealed Act' and substitute 'Police Act 1998'

Amendment No 28 [AG–1]—

Page 39, lines 11 and 12 [Schedule 1, clause 54(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.