Motions

Whistleblower Protection

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. F. Pangallo:

That this council—

1. Recognises the crucial role whistleblowers play in identifying and calling out misconduct and breaches of the law;

2. Acknowledges whistleblowers can find themselves in difficult and stressful circumstances which have the potential to damage their reputations, risk their careers and impact their personal health and safety;

3. Commends whistleblowers who report potential misconduct or breaches of the law;

4. Notes more needs to be done to protect whistleblowers when they do come forward and report misconduct or breaches of the law which harm consumers and the community; and

5. Calls on the state government to strengthen legislation that facilitates and protects whistleblowers and the appropriate disclosure of public interest information to further protect whistleblowers.

(Continued from 11 September 2024.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:33): During my speech on 11 September, I tabled two emails written by the Secretary of the Police Association of South Australia, Ms Bernadette Zimmermann, who was complaining about the abhorrent culture and intolerable behaviours towards herself and other staff by senior office staff, including her own brother, the then president, Mark Carroll.

One was addressed to Mr Carroll, pleading with him to stop his abuse towards her, which had caused her distress and health issues. The other contained serious allegations of bullying against her, which she said she had never endured anything like before. It was sent to then members of the committee of management in January 2021, among them the current deputy president, Daryl Mundy.

These were quite compelling documents and I have no reason not to believe the contents and Ms Zimmermann's concerns. The gravity of these allegations, which I had raised and which have been backed up by other female former employees, has led to SAPOL now commencing an internal investigation into the conduct of some of the police officers who sit on the committee of management, and industrial staff of the association.

This appalling behaviour was exclusively carried out by men, directed at women in that office. It would never be tolerated in any other workplace, especially in one with serving police officers running the show. I want to clarify here that I did not obtain those emails from Ms Zimmermann. They were provided to me by another female party who also raised the alarm with me about the dangerous and unsafe workplace that existed there and in SAPOL. That submission contains harrowing accounts of abuse, and it has taken a terrible toll on that person. Like Ms Zimmermann, she was pleading for support and for someone to listen and do something about it.

So even the former president's distraught sister, who was still a police officer, tried to blow the whistle on them, but where did it get her? And of what Mr Mundy, the current deputy president who continues his assault on the failed presidential candidate Darren Cornell and also myself through correspondence to members of the association? He has been aware of the problems inside PASA for more than three years, but what did he do about them? Nothing, of course. It has been conveniently covered up and today, as right-hand man to President Wade Burns, who made admissions of sexual misconduct against a civilian SAPOL staff member—an accused sex predator—Mr Mundy blatantly ignores that most egregious conduct and continues to defend Mr Burns, while attacking and being party to expelling others who have challenged them. It is a shameful protection racket.

It is clear through Ms Zimmermann's emails that Mr Mundy was informed of the problems in PASA as far back as 2021 when staff there were complaining about the situation, and by not acting or voicing his concerns to the management he has been complicit in allowing it to continue unchallenged. His position today is untenable, and he should resign immediately.

Mr Burns would have been aware that there were culture issues when he became deputy president under Mr Carroll, because he would have been privy to the Fair Work Commission's complaints by former employees and was present at directions hearings in February this year. Certainly members and delegates at next month's conference, where the Premier and the opposition leader are due to address them, should not only demand the resignation of Mr Burns but also Mr Mundy, who continues to spread untruths in his letter to delegates on 16 September, clearly not written by him but by lawyers on his behalf. I seek leave to table the document forwarded to members of the Police Association.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: He attacks Mr Cornell who, incidentally, was cleared of any wrongdoing by SAPOL's Ethical and Professional Standards Branch. Would Mr Mundy, still a serving police officer, stand up to such scrutiny from the Ethical and Professional Standards Branch? He attacks me and Mr Cornell for bringing discredit to the organisation on Channel 9's A Current Affair, turning it all into a debate about the PCDA—not about the conduct of his president, which he conveniently sidesteps, not the appalling toxic culture that exists within PASA, which has been confirmed by several whistleblowers who have worked there and had to leave because of it. He continues to state that Mr Cornell colluded with me and was aligned to me because of that program.

For Mr Mundy's benefit, I will say it again: when I raised those concerns about Mr Burns in this place, I had never met nor spoken to Mr Cornell. I did meet and talk with him and other PASA members following those revelations. The information about Mr Burns and that notorious incident at the Distill nightclub—which was witnessed by many, including commissioned police officers—had been passed on to me while I was still working as a journalist with Channel 7's Today Tonight program and before I had entered parliament.

I know several other journalists who knew about it, too. As I said, it was SAPOL's worst kept secret. Mr Mundy is quite delusional in thinking that PASA union delegates and its members do not care or will not question what has been going on under a veil of secrecy. Here is another letter I received from another former PASA employee, who did not have an axe to grind. The author has asked not to disclose their name. It is dated 1 September 2024:

Dear Mr Pangallo

I write to you to express my concerns around the lack of protections and voice for whistleblowers about matters involving people in positions of power in Adelaide, in this example involving the Police Association of South Australia (PASA). After I send this email to you, I feel it is safer for me to just walk away as it appears some people who hold or formerly held positions of power and influence choose to crush those speaking up against them with threats of legal action and ensuring information does not come to light.

Here is my story.

I commenced my employment at the Police Association of South Australia (PASA) in August 2021. As Executive Secretary, I provided support to the Secretary, former President Mark Carroll on occasion, and the industrial team, comprising of sworn police officers and one female civilian. Part of my role was to take the minutes for the committee of management, the Police Club (SA Branch), the Police Federation of Australia (SA Branch), ad hoc delegates' meetings, the annual conference, and staff meetings, so I was privy to the internal workings and discussions of all those meetings. I dealt with confidential information daily as I also provided support with member referrals to solicitors and their recommendations regarding grievance, workers compensation, legal, disciplinary and criminal matters and supported the construction of the monthly legal report for the committee of management.

At the start of my employment, I felt proud to be a small part of a powerful trade union providing much deserved assistance and support to South Australian police officers who put their lives on the line for our community every single day. I was employed for 20-plus years in my previous position and fully intended to work for PASA until retirement.

I was given warnings early on from other female PASA staff members that a toxic culture existed within PASA and I had walked into (pardon the French) a [s-storm] that had apparently been going on since 2019 due to the inappropriate behaviour of specific senior male staff members. I chose to reserve judgement and make my own mind up rather than listen to idle gossip from people I did not know.

I gave specific senior male staff members the benefit of the doubt far longer than I should have as I like to believe and focus on the best in people, even if I witness some negative behaviour. I did not want to believe it, but unfortunately the warnings I had initially been given were accurate. I found it incredibly difficult to truly absorb certain behaviours I had witnessed given I was working for a police trade union that existed to protect and provide services to its members and to protect employed staff.

I witnessed a complete dichotomy in the treatment of police officer members, committee of management members and PASA staff, particularly by former President Mark Carroll and Assistant Secretary Steve Whetton. Those that were favoured by the former President and Assistant Secretary and others were treated with kindness and empathy. However, those that were not favoured due to some simple things like personality clashes, people who challenged the views and/or decisions of the former President and Assistant Secretary to those who were deemed too emotional were treated completely differently and with disdain.

I frequently witnessed the former President and Assistant Secretary speak about police officer members experiencing mental and psychological health issues in highly derogatory terms and refusing to take phone calls from distressed members that were not favoured by them. I also witnessed and experienced PASA staff being treated with disrespect, spoken about in derogatory terms and being strategically bullied by the former President and Assistant Secretary. The mental and physical health of PASA staff was significantly impacted and I have watched many staff members, including myself, accrue new medical conditions due to the stress associated with working in that toxic culture of PASA.

The Police Association was, and unfortunately still is, an unsafe workplace for female staff. The toxic culture was led by former President Carroll, fuelled further by the Assistant Secretary, including disrespectful, offensive, belittling and derogatory language, strategic intimidation and bullying. While spearheaded by the President, other senior male figures also engaged in these behaviours by encouraging, condoning, participating in or ignoring inappropriate behaviour towards female staff and unfavoured police officer members.

I got along with all the male staff members at PASA, some genuinely, however, with others, once I realised their toxicity, I had to get along with them out of necessity to survive in that environment. The culture at PASA was one of intimidation and fear. Without a Human Resources department, the only avenue for complaints was via the former President. That is still the case today. If your complaint related to the former President himself, or a male staff member favoured by him, raising any concerns would have resulted in lining yourself up for direct criticism and strategic bullying by the former President. Female PASA staff were too frightened to speak up.

I had hoped that when newly elected President Wade Burns took office that things would turn around regarding the toxic culture within PASA, however, it appears this unfortunately is not the case. There are still female staff employed by PASA that remain at significant risk and further questions need to be asked in that regard (e.g., have there been any more female staff resignations? Have any female staff made a formal report to an internal or external agency regarding the continuing toxic culture?)

All staff have the right to work in a safe workplace, however, this was not the case when I was employed, and from all accounts this has not changed. PASA staff cannot assist in the provision of the best support and services to South Australian police officers while being subjected to such an unsafe workplace.

I always got along with Wade Burns; however, it is such a disappointment to me that he spearheaded the campaign to expel police officer members who challenged PASA and/or him directly. PASA is a member funded organisation that exists to support and provide services to members. In my view, it is simply unjust and plain wrong that members can be expelled from membership due to challenging the leadership of the association. Members have a right to express their views about how PASA is being run. Those expelled members who put their lives on the line every day for the South Australian community will now not have access to PASA life insurance and legal support. This is a complete injustice.

Please let me take some time to provide you with some background and more detailed information about the culture at PASA.

At the 2019 Global Alliance Conference on Post-Traumatic Stress a video presentation was shown about 'Taking care of police mental health in Australia' presented by Mark Carroll, the President of the Police Association of South Australia and then President of the Police Federation of Australia (PFA). The President was introduced as being passionately committed to education, awareness and the eradication of stigma that led to the development and implementation of a compelling mental health program for police officers and their families. During the presentation, the President made the following important statements:

"The job of keeping our community safe can carry very significant psychological costs for the people involved and their families. Among those costs are mental ill-health, psychological injuries and, in the worst cases, suicide."

There needs to be "the eradication of stigma…(and)…knowledge that there is help and that it does work" and "An understanding that the sooner you put your hand up for help…the sooner you'll get better."

"The Police Federation of Australia understood that the best intention efforts of police departments and departmental psychologists weren't improving matters. In some instances departmental and/or bureaucratic interventions made things worse. It is not our intention to diminish these important efforts, but the PFA is able to tell it like it really is. We are not restrained by bureaucracies and department speak."

Families need to "…be able to recognise the early signs and symptoms, because what we do know for sure is this. The sooner an emerging mental health problem for psychological injury is recognised the sooner professional help is sought, the sooner that a police officer gets better and gets back to work, and the less damage is done to the family."

"We have to eradicate stigma. There is no shame in a knee injury chasing a bad guy at night. Equally, there is no shame in psychological injury."

"We have to understand it's not a case of one size fits all. Two cops can attend the same event: one might get a psychological injury and one might not. If you do suffer a stress reaction it's very natural. It doesn't mean you're soft, it just means you're human."

"All Australians huddle under the umbrella and safety and protection held aloft by our police men and police women. That safety and protection comes at a cost, and all of us who are not police officers have an obligation to look fairly and squarely at those costs, understand them, and to ensure our elected representatives and the managers and bureaucrats that implement policy do the right thing all the time and every time."

"I did a radio interview the other day and made the point that realigning mental health, psychological injuries and workplace health and safety in Australia's police forces will not happen overnight. It took Australia over 40-years to turn itself into a country in which most of us don't smoke, and that took a major cultural shift. It's the same for mental health."

That is the end of the quote from that video. The author then goes on to say:

I wholeheartedly agree with all those statements made by former President Carroll, and I'm certain that South Australian police officers and the community would also agree. The quotes above represent the support and services that should be provided to all South Australian police officers by PASA. That is a representation of the PASA that members want and deserve.

The former President contributed greatly to industrial matters involving policing in South Australia and to the welfare of PASA members over the years. That is clear, and I commend him for those achievements. However, sadly, from what I witnessed the former President had long since lost his passion for the job and respect for PASA members and its staff with the exclusion of those that fell within his favour.

I do try and believe there is good in everyone, however I strongly believe that the former President Carroll, in particular, and Assistant Secretary Whetton's inappropriate behaviour has been allowed to continue unchecked due to a lack of external oversight over former President Carroll's behaviour.

Treatment of PASA Members

During my employment at PASA I frequently witnessed the former president and assistant secretary speak about unfavoured members behind closed doors using disrespectful, offensive, belittling and derogatory language. Examples included:

a) Hearing the former President and current Assistant Secretary referring to unfavoured members as"

"broken biscuits" and "[f-ing] crying psychos" if they were experiencing mental health problems, psychological issues and/or PTSD;

"maggots" and "[f-tards]";

"weak" and "soft" for contacting PASA in an emotionally distressed state due to psychological issues stating "if they can't hack the job they shouldn't be in the job".

b) Hearing the former President frequently comment that he "hates police" and that "they are all idiots and wankers".

c) One would naturally assume that information relating to member's matters would be kept confidential and only shared with those who needed to know for the provision of support and services to that member. Unfortunately, that is not the case at PASA, as any information shared with the former President, Assistant Secretary, the MLO (sworn) or In-House Counsel Craig Stevens was not kept confidential. If members shared information with one of them, the information was shared between all of them, and laughed at despite any assurances of confidentiality.

d) Hearing the Assistant Secretary comment that a particular member of the Committee of Management 'should not be allowed to travel to interstate conferences as she is on workers compensation.'

e) In addition, to the daily derogatory language about members the Assistant Secretary frequently refused to take calls from any members who were emotionally upset, unless they were someone he favoured. If you were a member favoured by the Assistant Secretary, the support and service provided was completely different. The frequent response to a request for the Assistant Secretary to speak to an emotionally distressed member was 'I am not going to speak to that [f-ing] crying psycho'. That language is still used by Assistant Secretary Whetton today.

f) On one occasion, I overheard a staff member's telephone request for him to contact a distressed member urgently. The response received was the Assistant Secretary would not be taking any calls, especially not from distressed members, as the President, the Member Liaison Officer (sworn) were on their second bottle of red at the Strathmore Hotel.

g) The Assistant Secretary regularly refused to take calls from members he viewed as troublemakers as they disagreed with views and/or decisions made by the former President and Assistant Secretary (e.g., Joe McDonald, Kerry Rouse, Pauline Porter, Tammy Lauren, Briony Shedag, Darren Cornell and Mitch Manning).

h) Being present during a PASA staff meeting in 2022 during which the President made jokes about suicide.

When I worked for PASA, members who were not favoured by the former President and Assistant Secretary, were treated with contempt or at the very least a lack of compassion. For Police officer members experiencing mental health and psychological issues, it was not the case that 'the sooner you put your hand up the better' as the former President stated in the 2019 video mentioned earlier. Police officer members should be able to know that without a doubt, if they call PASA for any reason, but particularly when they are in distress, they will be provided with assistance and compassion, even if they are not favoured by male sworn industrial team members. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I have heard [a current PASA employee] spend hours speaking on the phone with emotionally distressed and sometimes suicidal members, trying to do everything she could to help them keep their head above water. If a call from a highly distressed member is turned away, like calls have been by Assistant Secretary Whetton, it could be the moment that tips a suicidal member over a ledge they cannot return from.

Committee of Management

Committee of Management members who challenge the views and/or decisions of the former President were mistreated. I was an Executive Officer for ethics committees since 2011 and witnessed more robust discussions with swearing than I can count. However, I have never observed such unprofessional behaviour during meetings as displayed by the former President. Swearing, although not ideal, is one thing, however, aggressive, belittling, belligerent and deliberately intimidating behaviour directed towards another person is another and should not be acceptable in the workplace of any civilised country.

Then:

I am aware that the committee were not given a copy of the submissions that I…

I will move to this section:

Toxicity and deliberate failure to engage

I worked closely with the former President's second Executive Secretary. Although they initially got on well, the toxicity of the former President's behaviour became clear very quickly, and she resigned. Out of fear the staff member did not feel able to be truthful about the reasons she chose to leave. Out of spite and for laughs the former President then deliberately chose not to engage or speak a word to his own Executive Secretary for the last two weeks of her employment, apparently laughing about it behind closed doors. He would also not allow her to attend a staff meeting, advising me that she had resigned and was no longer welcome.

Verbal abusive language

The morning after the former President's second Executive Secretary resigned I made the mistake of saying to him, while in his office dropping off files, that her resignation was a bit of a surprise (even though it wasn't), but I did agree with some of the processes requiring improvement I knew she had discussed with him. The President snapped back at me in an instant and yelled in a very aggressive manner that 'anyone else who wants to leave can just eff off as well'. I felt shocked and emotionally distressed by his behaviour. I remember thinking to myself, how can the President and CEO of the Police Association, a trade union for police, behave in such an appalling manner and disrespectful manner. The President did not appear to even recognise how inappropriate his behaviour was, and no apology was forthcoming.

Unjustified contempt for Secretary

I witnessed many instances of unjustified aggression towards the Secretary by the former President. On the morning of the 7 September 2023 PASA Committee of Management meeting, I overheard the President storm up to the Secretary aggressively and irately demanding to know why she had placed a particular legal matter on the committee agenda for decision rather than the Legal Sub-Committee. The President was irate, aggressive and rude and accused the Secretary of sending the matter to the full committee due to her own self-interest. This was an unprovoked, completely unjustified verbal attack. I knew it was unjustified as the President himself had asked me to include it on the agenda for the full committee. I would like to say that this kind of behaviour from the former President towards the Secretary was infrequent, however, sadly that was not the case. The former President's verbal and email attacks of the Secretary were frequent and strategic, designed to appear 'reasonable' to those favoured by the former President and those who did not fully understand the politics in play at PASA. The former President's third Executive Secretary even witnessed In-House Counsel Stevens unjustifiably verbally attacking the Secretary in the PASA kitchen.

It should be noted that In-House Counsel Stevens also tried to 'convince me' that the Secretary had bullied me during a routine Legal Sub-Committee meeting. I was blown away at the audacity of In-House Council Stevens even suggesting such a thing which could not have been further from the truth.

Hand on heart, I can say with one hundred percent honesty I have never witnessed the Secretary treat any staff member with disrespect and in fact can state that the Secretary was the only staff member that tried to stand up for admin staff at PASA. The Secretary has always treated me with the utmost respect and professionalism and did everything she could to support and provide good service to members. It was clear to admin staff though that the President held an unwavering contempt for the Secretary no matter what she did, that appeared to have arisen before my time from her flagging an issue with a contract of a PASA staff member, who is the wife of his best friend.

Committee of Management members who were favoured by the former President and Assistant Secretary were given royal treatment and treated with kindness and compassion; however, this is the complete opposite to how members and unfavoured female staff were treated. From what [I] witnessed, those within the favour of the former President and Assistant Secretary, find it very hard to 'believe' that those same people could treat others with such contempt…but they do.

Let me explain how PASA staff were impacted by the toxic culture at PASA.

During my employment at PASA I witnessed the former President and Assistant Secretary speak frequently about PASA staff using disrespectful, offensive, belittling, and derogatory language. Examples include:

a) Derogatory References about Females

Referring to female administration staff as 'the old fat and uglies'

Referring to a female staff member, who has provided over 20-years continuous service to PASA and its members as a 'psycho' behind her back for choosing to actively seek appropriate assistance for depression.

Having knowledge that the former President had been heard saying that 'you can do anything you want to a woman, as long as you give her flowers afterwards' and about a woman that had been raped that 'clearly, he didn't buy her flowers afterwards'.

The former President, Assistant Secretary and Member Liaison Officer (sworn) presented me with flowers and a card on my last day in the office thanking me for my contribution to PASA. It was widely known that the former President believed administration staff are below him, so although I accepted the flowers, I accepted them knowing they were disingenuous, given more to ensure my silence about inappropriate behaviour witnessed during my employment.

Having knowledge that as a black humour 'joke' the former President [that is Mr Carroll] and Assistant Secretary [Mr Whetton] re-enacted the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in the kitchen at PASA in front of a female staff member.

b) Lack of Care about Staff Safety

Being present during a meeting where the lack of a duress alarm for staff within the new 'state of the art' refurbished at Carrington Street PASA premises, where the former President joked and laughed "ah well, if staff get murdered, they get murdered, I will take the fall for it".

c) Deliberate Failure to Engage

Having knowledge that the former President ignored his first Executive Secretary for several months without explanation or apparent reason, resulting in emotional distress and physical health issues for that staff member.

d) Toxicity & Deliberate Failure to Engage

I worked closely with the former President's second Executive Secretary. Although they initially got on well, the toxicity of the former President's behaviour became clear very quickly and she resigned. Out of fear, the staff member did not feel able to be truthful about the reasons she chose to leave. Out of spite and for laughs, the former President then deliberately chose not to engage or speak a word to his own Executive Secretary for the last 2-weeks of her employment; apparently laughing about it behind closed doors. He would also not allow her to attend a staff meeting advising me that she had resigned and was no longer welcome.

Then:

g) Inequitable use of PASA Vehicles

[A staff member] was not provided with a work vehicle as part of her employment contract. Although I am uncertain as to why during my employment at PASA it was clear that the President also held contempt for [this person]. For that reason, the President prohibited [her] from borrowing the work vehicles of the Assistant Secretary or MLO Heffernan (sworn) to attend interviews to support members, even though she had been allowed to for years prior to that point. In contrast, an admin staff member being shown favouritism by the former President after an emotional breakdown at work in May 2023, was given permission to use the Assistant Secretary's work vehicle to drive to IKEA to purchase one 'go box' to trial for the office. This is merely one example of the inequities that the former President allowed and encouraged in the workplace. I have it on good authority that this inequity continues at PASA today.

h) Punishment for Seeking Assistance from Committee of Management

[A staff member] submitted a request to the former President to work from home one day a week on medical grounds and provided supporting documentation from her specialist. This request was denied outright by the former President, so [she] then submitted a request to the Committee of Management, and it was approved outright.

On Thursday 21 October 2021, [this staff member] worked from home as approved. That morning, I overheard the former President tell the receptionist to advise admin staff via email that ALL incoming calls were to be forwarded to [her] for the rest of the day. Assistant Secretary Whetton and MLO (sworn) Heffernan were standing behind the former President, and I could hear them snickering in the background as the former President provided instructions to the receptionist. The three of them then left the office to have their daily extended coffee break (up to an hour).

It was standard practice at PASA that calls from members were shared equally…to ensure equitable workload distribution within the industrial team. On the day I speak of [this staff member] was forced to manage ALL calls received for the entire day, even though both the Assistant Secretary and MLO (sworn) were at work and able to take calls. There were, of course, times when member's calls would fall to one industrial team member (e.g., if two were attending member interviews, PDT—

that is the Police Disciplinary Tribunal—

or the SAET), however, when workload is shifted to one industrial team member out of vindictiveness, it is not appropriate and a clear manoeuvre of strategic bullying.

At the next weekly industrial Caucus meeting, [the staff member] queried the former President why the receptionist was told to advise staff to direct all calls to her that day. The former President responded abruptly and loudly with anger, muttering that the receptionist must have misheard, and he would never have advised the receptionist to do such a thing; but of course, he did. It appeared from my perspective that the President had advised the receptionist all calls should be allocated to [the staff member] as a form of punishment for going above his head to get the work from home arrangements approved by the Committee of Management.

i) Double Standards

In the spirit of inclusivity the former President's third Executive Secretary (on to his 4^th or 5^th now) suggested all PASA staff be invited to a Christmas lunch off site. The former President scoffed loudly at this suggestion and advised this would not be allowed. On 23 December 2022, the former President, Assistant Secretary and MLO (sworn) then proceeded to go on a 4-hour celebratory Christmas lunch while all female staff had to remain at the office and take a standard 30-minute lunch break. While a more minor example, it is just one of the many frequent double standards that were championed by the president.

j) Minimisation of Female Staff PIDs

Staff were asked to update their Position Information Documents (PIDs). While the former President made it appear that the Secretary and MLO (civilian) were given the opportunity to update their PIDs they were not as they were edited and/or changes were overridden to suit the preferences of the former President, Assistant Secretary and In-House Counsel Craig Stevens.

Once staff had updated their PIDs, the In-House Counsel then removed the detail he deemed appropriate from the PIDs of female staff (admin and industrial staff) stating that PIDs were intended to just be a broad summary of duties. That would have been fine, except for the fact I noted at the Committee of Management meeting the PIDs and duties for male members of staff were greatly expanded upon, in contrast to the PIDs and duties for female staff which had been minimised.

MLO…(civilian) PID was minimised, in comparison to MLO Heffernan's (sworn) PID, even though they undertook the same work. In addition, the PID of the MLO (sworn) position stated that he provided regular 'reports' to the Committee of Management, which was not true.

The Secretary's PID was also significantly minimised, with many of the Secretary's duties being included in Assistant Secretary PID without discussion or justification. When the Secretary challenged the minimisation of the duties in the PID, updated by the President and In-House Counsel Stevens, I clearly remember her being met with a tirade of insults and aggression from the former President, while those favoured by the former President remained silent. The [civilian MLO and] Secretary were out of favour with the President, and minimisation of PIDs was a clear consequence and punishment of the former President's contempt for them both.

k) Occupational Health & Safety

In…September of 2023, I assisted the Police Association to transition document filing from hard copy to primarily electronic. Due to the sheer volume of grievance, workers compensation, discipline and criminal matters the Secretary dealt daily, the Secretary decided that new matters would be electronic but hard copy files be used for existing matters until finalised.

After the refurbishment of the Carrington Street PASA building, PASA staff returned to Carrington Street to work. However, it became apparent that the low style of shelving was an occupational health and safety issue for admin staff, particularly those with spinal injuries. The former President implemented a 'clean desk' policy to keep the newly refurbished office looking modern and uncluttered. I understood that part, however, I did not understand how the former President could prohibit the placement of files on top of shelves below waist height, after staff highlighted the occupational health and safety issue to him. The former President's desire for a 'clean desk policy' appeared to trump the health and wellbeing of staff with spinal injuries.

l) Removal of Avenue for 'Anonymous' Complaints

The former President allowed staff to have an anonymous 'suggestion box' in the main office following receipt from staff. Whenever suggestions were made the former President did not like it, male members of staff would question female staff (with the exclusion of the Secretary) after the meeting to ascertain who made the suggestion. If a suggestion was submitted and in handwriting, the handwriting was compared to the handwriting of female staff. This was incredibly intimidating as it made female staff feel they would be targeted if they submitted a suggestion the former President did not approve of.

After several suggestions had been made that the former President did not like (i.e., including holding an anonymous staff culture survey) the former President advised staff at the 2 February 2023 meeting the suggestion box would no longer be available and that any staff suggestions are welcome, but must be communicated directly to the former President. He said, "my door is always open".

Female staff did not feel the former President was approachable as he may blow up if he did not like a suggestion and did not feel he would take issues/concerns discussed seriously or protect staff members' confidentiality. Anything discussed with the President was always shared with the Assistant Secretary, MLO sworn and In-House Counsel, despite any assurances of confidentiality the former President made, and was likely to be joked about in the lunchroom.

Female staff walked on eggshells around the former President due to his unpredictable and vindictive nature. He was known for blowing up in anger and/or being dismissive and rude, without seeming to be aware of the impact he was having on staff and their stress levels. As stated by one admin staff member, you have to know when to "duck and cover" if you work around former President Carroll.

Consequently, the removal of the suggestion box meant that admin staff no longer had an avenue to make suggestions and/or comments regarding the workplace.

m) Staff Culture Survey

The former President organised for a PASA Staff Culture Survey to be designed by Square Holes after two suggestions had been received for a staff survey to be run by the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in the staff suggestion box before its removal. After the former President ignored the first suggestion for a survey, he relented after the second suggestion was made. However, he made it clear to staff how annoyed he was that the suggestion had even been made. After the second suggestion had been made, male members of staff questioned female staff to try and identify who submitted the suggestion.

The former President has a long-standing relationship with Square Holes, which is why I presume the suggestion was made for the survey to be designed and run by the Employee Assistant Program (EAP). The former President ignored that request. No admin or female staff member believed that a survey designed by Square Holes would be anonymous, and that all responses would be included due to the former President's expected manipulation of results.

The President verbally advised staff that the survey would be 100% voluntary, anonymous and confidential. The online survey was emailed to staff on 22 December 2022. Despite assurances of anonymity, identifying screening questions were included (e.g., How long have you worked at PASA? etc) and although staff were not advised of this, all surveys were linked to each person's supervisor and questions were provided to each staff member in a different order. A staff member and I discovered this while completing the survey at the same time over the phone. This was far from an anonymous and confidential survey, and we all knew it.

According to verbal advice, the survey was also 'voluntary' however, the former President asked and reminded female staff to complete the survey on several occasions. Some admin staff were even sent email reminders to complete the survey by the former President, which demonstrated that he already new the identity of staff who had not yet completed the survey.

All admin and female staff members (excluding the Marketing Consultant who is the wife of the former President's best friend) felt (1) pressured to complete the survey; (2) and pressured to respond in a way the former President would approve of (i.e., in a way that reflected positively and glorified him); and not tell the truth about the toxic culture of PASA due to fear of repercussions from the former President.

I am aware that two female staff members did include negative commentary about the former President and the toxic culture of PASA, and I commend them for doing so. However, when survey results were presented by the former President, predictably those comments had been excluded as the staff who completed those surveys apparently 'failed' the screening questions. No survey intended to be anonymous, and to collect the true views of staff, should ever contain screening questions in the first place.

If one were to review the NHMRC's National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2023), ('National Statement') it would be very clear that it is not possible to guarantee anonymity or confidentiality for surveys conducted with a small population pool (i.e. in this case 14 staff members). In addition, where a survey is undertaken by an employer/manager where a significant power differential exists (i.e. President versus admin staff), there is innate pressure for staff to participate and respond only in ways that will be approved by the President due to staff fears of repercussions. Conducting a survey under these conditions is deemed not to be ethical by the National Statement (refer to chapter 4.3 and paragraphs 2.2.9, 3.1.17, 3.1.20 and 3.1.27). While I appreciate the staff survey was not conducted for research purposes, the guidelines on which the National Statement are based have been designed for the protection of participants (i.e., PASA staff in this case) which can also be used as guidance for employers to undertake staff surveys in an ethical manner. In no uncertain terms, the PASA survey was not undertaken in an ethical manner, with the protection of PASA staff in mind. Survey results reported were basically propaganda manipulated by the former President with the intention of convincing the committee of management and delegates that PASA is a safe and healthy workplace. Unfortunately, the opposite was true, and former President Carroll was spearheading a toxic workplace culture designed to protect his own reputation.

n) Mandatory Audio Recorded Interviews without Informed Consent

On Wednesday 14 June 2023 at the PASA temporary office at 420 King William Street, one admin staff member experienced an emotional breakdown due to long-term excessive workload. As a close friend of this staff member at the time, I felt emotionally distressed about her emotional breakdown and felt concerned for her welfare as did all other admin staff.

Later that morning, the admin staff who had been present during the staff member's breakdown were told to go to a room to speak with the former President behind closed doors, one-by-one, about what had happened. When it was my turn I entered the room, feeling quite nervous as I found most conversations with the former President stressful due to never knowing how he would react. When I entered the room, I realised In-House Counsel Craig Stevens was also present which I had no forewarning of. No explanation was provided as to why he was also present that I can recall. I felt incredibly uncomfortable and stressed from the start, given how unpredictable the President could be and given the clear power differential between the President, In-House Counsel versus myself.

My recollection is that the former President proceeded to advise that they were interviewing staff with regard to the staff members "episode" (as he referred to it as) as he expected it to result in lodgement of a workers compensation claim against PASA. I got the impression the purpose of the interviews was to protect PASA and the former President rather than protecting the welfare of the staff member, and other staff members who felt distressed from what they witnessed and their own long-term high workload.

To my shock, I was then advised the interview would be audio recorded on the former President's mobile phone. I did not feel that I had any choice, and I was not provided with information about what would be done with this audio recording, nor was there a formal informed consent process in place to protect staff.

From that point onwards, my emotional distress levels increased, and I felt like I was being interrogated, like I had done something wrong, rather than a 'discussion' or 'interview'. I don't think it is even legal to audio record an interview/interrogation with a convicted criminal by Police officers without the provision of a clear and informed consent process, yet here we were, PASA admin staff being subjected to such treatment.

During the interview/interrogation I explained why I thought my colleague experienced an emotional breakdown, which was due to the weight of long-term excessive workload. The former President then asked, why if that was the case, had I, or other admin staff, not taken over the duties of the staff member who broke down prior to this point. At that point I could not contain my emotion and broke down also, as I was also dealing with long-term high workload myself with no capacity to take on any additional work. The former President then became defensive in my view, rather than show any compassion for my situation. I was the Executive Secretary, primarily for the Secretary, whom he had nothing but contempt, and in my view, most of the time it appeared the former President allowed that contempt to flow on to me without justification.

After I emotionally broke down, In-House Counsel Stevens interjected to say that they 'strongly encourage me to make an appointment with the EAP Access Program to get the medical attention I need.' That was completely insulting and offensive, as 'counselling' was not what was needed here. The long-term workload of the admin staff was too high, especially after a former admin staff member had moved interstate and not been replaced. The Secretary was aware of the high workload of admin staff, but her ability to enact change for admin staff had been blocked on numerous occasions by the former President, yet he continued to unjustifiably blame the Secretary.

At completion of each of our interviews, the former President asked each of us to also email him a written account of what had happened without any explanation of why that was required. No admin staff member provided this information to the former President.

After my emotional breakdown during my interview/interrogation, there was no follow-up from the President to check if I was okay, or if I wanted to talk further about my high workload. I did not feel that the former President showed any regard for my health and wellbeing, or any of the other admin staff members who were also distressed, as would be reasonably expected from an employer.

Following the interviews, all admin staff who had been involved were significantly emotionally distressed and all contacted members of their family or friends for support and advised the Secretary about what had occurred as she had not been present at the time. In her duty of care as Secretary, she informed the Committee of Management of the events that occurred via an email on 15 June 2023. It is my understanding that the former President then emailed the committee with advice that the Secretary was overreacting and to ignore the Secretary's email. The Secretary was not overreacting. The Secretary was reacting in a reasonable and appropriate manner given the information provided to her and the significant emotional distress experienced by admin staff.

o) EAP Access Program Presentation

In the week or so after the staff members emotional breakdown, the former President and Assistant Secretary organised for an EAP Access Program to be presented to staff. We were advised that attendance was 'voluntary'. It was organised on a day that two of the four admin staff members had a routinely scheduled day off, including the former President's own Executive Secretary.

While we had been informed that attendance was voluntary, the former President personally asked each of us whether we were going. In addition, when one staff member responded 'no' she would not be going, the former President asked for an explanation as to why she would not be attending. Completely inappropriate. Except for the staff member who had the emotional breakdown in the office leading to the interviews, all admin staff felt the purpose of the EAP access program presentations were more about protecting the organisation and the former President rather than genuine care about the welfare of the staff. This was the opinion held by admin staff due to the way the former President had mishandled the interviews and due to his mishandling of the PASA culture survey.

I chose not to attend the presentation. I found out later that the EAP access program presentation was about emotional resilience in the workplace, which is frankly insulting as none of us would have lasted that long at PASA without resilience. A second EAP access program presentation was organised for Friday 14 July 2023. The former President again informed us that attendance was voluntary. However, despite that an email was sent to staff by the Assistant Secretary that strangely stated that emails would be saved. This gave admin staff the impression that Assistant Secretary Whetton would be keeping a record of staff who attended and those who did not. The reminder email was also sent again by the former President, which resulted in staff feeling further pressure to attend.

This was a toxic and unsafe workplace spearheaded by former President Carroll. I had gone from being proud to feeling ashamed to be part of a police union led by a President who spoke in such a derogatory manner about police officer members and association staff. What happened next was a series of events which have led me to the despondent mindset that I now find myself in with regards to this matter.

Staff complaint to Committee of Management

In July 2023, with no HR department a significant proportion of female PASA staff spoke to some trusted Committee of Management members to flag our concerns and distress about the unsafe workplace. A representative anonymous complaint was submitted to the committee in August 2023 for action, submitted anonymously initially due to fears of repercussions from the former President. Staff had hoped the committee would act swiftly to assist staff; however, it soon became clear that would not be the case. There was no help coming.

An independent investigation would be commenced; however, it would be a very lengthy process, much like the special investigation undertaken involving allegations brought against the former President. In addition, the staff impacted had no faith an investigation would result in any protection for staff, as a significant proportion of committee members were blindly obedient to the former President due to favouritism, only voting in favour of matters he approved of.

The staff impacted felt incredibly let down and unprotected by Deputy President Wade Burns and Vice President Daryl Mundy. I felt I had a good working relationship with both the Deputy President and Vice President; however, neither of them ever asked me directly what was really going on at PASA.

Admin Staff Resignations

Impacted staff did not feel protections were in place for them or protections that would act swiftly enough and for that reason three female staff members, including myself, resigned from PASA within quick succession to escape the unsafe and toxic workplace. We felt there was no other choice, as if we submitted a complaint to SafeWork SA or the Fair Work Commission while still employed by PASA the repercussions from the former President behind closed doors would be unbearable.

The former President's third Executive Secretary tendered her resignation in August 2023 whilst on annual leave, effective early September 2023. I resigned in September 2023 and another female staff member resigned a month or so later. The former President would like others to believe that the three staff members who resigned colluded into resigning at similar times, but this was not the case. We were all just reacting to the last straw of the former President's inappropriate behaviour when we were interviewed/interrogated, and audio recorded without formal informed consent. It was not financially viable for any of us to resign without having obtained other employment first, and none of us could have planned when a job application would be successful. We were all just fortunate enough to obtain other employment around the same time. There was never any 'collusion', we just turned to each other for emotional support as we had all experienced the same thing, and we could not speak about internal PASA matters to anyone else.

The former President would also like people to believe that I left purely for financial reasons. This is not true. Yes, I am a single struggling homeowner, but I stayed as long as I did out of loyalty to PASA and its members. If I had wanted to leave for financial reasons, I would have left a long time before I did. About a week after I submitted my resignation, the Media Officer initiated a discussion with me, during which he asked if I would stay working for PASA if they matched the salary of my new job offer. I declined this offer, as I was leaving purely to escape the toxic culture and unsafe workplace. I could not communicate that to the Media Officer, as I was aware he was close to the President and did not feel safe in doing so. I did not feel safe advising any male staff members, or male Committee of Management members who were favoured by the former President, the real reason I was leaving. It was simply not safe to do so.

Fair Work Commission Applications

After the three of us resigned, we felt relieved to have escaped the toxic culture of PASA, but also felt it was not right that we felt no choice but to resign before we could try to get assistance from the Fair Work Commission. Submission of an application to SafeWork SA or the Fair Work Commission prior to resigning would have placed laser focussed targets on each of our foreheads by the former President and the Assistant Secretary. We could not take that risk, and we each submitted applications to the Fair Work Commission independently after we had resigned. This was the only way we thought we would have any protection, because the Committee of Management had let us down in a big way.

A solicitor with knowledge of policing and industrial matters had been recommended to me by one kind Committee of Management member, so I just ran with that not knowing what else to do. The other staff members who resigned ended up using the same solicitor. The fact that the solicitor we all used was the same one used in the matter of former PASA Deputy President, Samantha Strange against former President Carroll, is neither here nor there, despite what the former President would have members believe. Our complaints against the former President and Assistant Secretary in particular were separate and completely unrelated.

I prepared an application to submit to the Fair Work Commission, however, in the lead up to submission, my fear of repercussions from the former President intensified to the point I did not feel I could proceed without some assurance of protection, and I advised my solicitor accordingly. The former President's third Executive Secretary was as fearful as I was and did not want to submit her application without some discussion and assurance of protection.

Meeting with Senior Members of SAPOL

To try and obtain some assurance of protection for us both, our solicitor (Ms Julienne Dewar) organised a meeting with senior management at SAPOL headquarters and invited us both to attend. After consideration, we agreed to listen to what they had to say before making a final decision about our individual submissions to the Fair Work Commission, but I was still feeling apprehensive. I attended in person and the former President's third Executive Secretary attended via telephone. I was advised that former PASA Deputy President Samantha Strange would be in attendance as she also had matters to discuss. I met her for the first time that day. I had never met her previously as Ms Strange had resigned from the PASA Committee of Management prior to my time at PASA.

The people who attended the SAPOL meeting, in addition to Ms Dewar, Ms Strange and me (with the President's 3^rd Executive Secretary on the phone), were Assistant Commissioner Simon Watkins, Detective Superintendent Rob Papworth (Head, Ethics and Professional Standards Branch), Mr Peter Shanahan, Legal Counsel for Commissioner Grant Stevens (via telephone) and a senior solicitor for SAPOL. Detailed discussions were held for about an hour and sufficient assurances were provided by SAPOL to enable the former President's third Executive Secretary and I to move forward and individually submit applications to the Fair Work Commission regarding conditions at PASA. Approximately one month later, a third admin staff member submitted her resignation to PASA for the same reasons that we did and chose to submit an Fair Work Commission application also.

FWC Application—Former President's Executive Secretary No. 3.

The former President's third Executive Secretary submitted her application to the Fair Work Commission before I did and consequently hearings were organised for her matter first. What happened next utterly astounded both of us. The former President organised for seven (yes, seven) solicitors, including King's Counsel solicitors, to represent PASA in person at a Fair Work Commission hearing, against the third Executive Secretary's one solicitor. Presumably the seven solicitors were paid for using PASA member funds without their knowledge.

It is my understanding that the former President and current President have not been transparent with members about how much of members money was spent on defending three Fair Work Commission applications from former PASA staff acting as whistleblowers on the toxic culture of PASA spearheaded by the former President. To my knowledge, costs have only been provided to members up until August 2023, before the Fair Work Commission applications were even lodged. Don't members have a right to know what their money is being spent on…and how much of it is being spent?

The former President also outright refused Committee of Management member requests to view the application submitted to the Fair Work Commission by the former President's third Executive Secretary. From what I understand, the former President advised the committee it would not be given access to the statement as it may prejudice them if they were to be called as a witness for the matter. Nonetheless, the Committee of Management were expected to approve funding for the seven solicitors without reasonable justification of why seven were required and without citing any invoices associated on receipt. The ongoing invoices for the seven solicitors were never viewed by the Committee of Management, only the former President, and presumably Deputy President Burns and the Assistant Secretary and In-House Counsel Stevens. Is that how a Committee of Management should run? I can't see how any police officer would think that is okay.

The former President's third Executive Secretary and solicitor were bombarded with letter after letter of significant length (via email), and frequently several a day, from PASA solicitors, not just from Michael Ats of Lieschke & Weatherill. This was incredibly distressing for the third Executive Secretary in the lead up to the first in-person Fair Work Commission hearing for her matter.

During my employment at PASA, I learned quickly that the President's modus operandi was to strategically intimidate others in meetings, whether it be SAPOL senior management, Commissioner Grant Stevens or members, to gain the upper hand and to obtain his desired outcome. It was obvious that former President Carroll's engagement of seven solicitors for the first hearing of this Fair Work Commission matter was purely an intimidation tactic intended to result in the third Executive Secretary withdrawing her application.

From what I understand, the hearing went for several hours, and the third Executive Secretary was so emotionally distressed by the situation and the intimidation tactics that she was visibly shaken and had to keep her eyes closed, so much so that Fair Work Commission Deputy President Anderson (judge of the matter) asked her if she would prefer to leave the room. Former President Carroll got the result he desired as after the hearing the third Executive Secretary's fears of repercussions intensified and the next day, she withdrew her Fair Work Commission application purely due to the intimidation tactics of the seven solicitors in a position of greater power; not because the information provided in her statement was vexatious as former President Carroll would like the Committee of Management to believe. Deputy President Mundy has recently tried to convince members that the Fair Work Commission applications of the three resigned admin staff were withdrawn as the veracity of the applications were tested and they failed. That is not true. Simply put, they were all beaten down by a powerful union with unlimited legal funding to crush anyone who dared speak out against former President Carroll in particular.

The third staff member who resigned and submitted a Fair Work Commission application withdrew her application at this point out of fear of being crushed by the Carroll union machine. I was scared, intimidated and horrified at the lengths the former President would go to, to crush each of us under a never-ending legal battle, but at this point I held on and continued down the path of my Fair Work Commission application, as what I had witnessed at PASA was so wrong.

My Fair Work Commission Application

As with a previous application submitted to the Fair Work Commission by the former President's third Executive Secretary, from my understanding the former President again outright refused Committee of Management member requests to view the application I had submitted to the Fair Work Commission. Committee members were again advised that they would not be given access to my statement as it may prejudice them if they were to be called as a witness for the matter. In addition, the Committee of Management were again expected to approve funding for the multiple solicitors, without explanation as to why and without sighting any invoices associated once received.

Given the distressing number of PASA solicitor emails Ms Dewar and the President's third Executive Secretary were bombarded with during her matter, a decision was made for only Ms Dewar to receive copies of PASA solicitor emails/ letters during my matter (i.e. not me) to minimise any emotional distress for me. Despite that, hearing about the bombardment of letters from several different solicitors and their contents from my solicitor was highly distressing and intimidating for me.

During this period, I also received a WhatsApp phone call from former President Carroll even though it was inappropriate for him to do so. Although former President Carroll claimed, via affidavit, that he inadvertently called me while looking at messages in WhatsApp; given the length of time the phone rang, and the location of the app call button, I do not believe that to be the case. I did not answer the call. The phone call resulted in me feeling even more intimidated, which I strongly believe was the intention of the call. In December 2023, even though Fair Work Commission Deputy President Anderson placated the former President by including wording to the effect that the phone call was likely not intentional, a Protection Order was still put in place to prevent former President Carroll from contacting me again.

I was contacted by the media and asked whether I would give permission for them to gain access to my Fair Work Commission application documents. As I have never submitted a Fair Work Commission application, I did not want to do the wrong thing, so I called the Fair Work Commission for advice. The written response I received from senior Fair Work Commission was later shared with the former President and his solicitors who were intent on convincing the Fair Work Commission that my application was vexatious, and my contact with the media supported that, even though it was the media that contacted me. The Fair Work Commission Deputy President also sought permission to access my phone call to the Fair Work Commission. I gave permission freely as I had nothing to hide, however, I felt increasingly intimidated by written threats to sue me for costs (of seven solicitors) and completely unprotected as a whistle blower. It was at this point, on the 16^th of January 2024, that feelings of intimidation led me to feel that I had no choice but to withdraw my Fair Work Commission application. I felt shocked and so incredibly disappointed that all I had done was tell the truth of what happened at PASA with the former President and Assistant Secretary, yet there did not appear to be any protections in place for me within the Fair Work Commission process as a whistleblower.

I always knew I would need to present my side of things, and the former President would submit his side of things. I recognise and support the need for natural justice for both parties. What I did not expect was the Fair Work Commission to seemingly allow tactics of intimidation to be used by the then President and his seven solicitors (including King's Counsel), without recognition of the significant power differential between then President Carroll, who was not only a Police officer, but a President and CEO of a powerful Police Trade Union, against us, civilians who had very limited funding against a Goliath who would not stop until we were crushed to dust. If any of us had proceeded further telling the truth, we would have been interrogated by King's Counsel solicitors in the witness box, picked apart like 'criminals'. Where is the natural justice for the little guy here, I ask you? The answer is clear—there were no protections or support. The person with the most legal funding and influence in political circles wins, full stop.

We all lost complete faith in the Fair Work Commission process, which we had foolishly believed was there to protect us. We were very wrong.

In regard to my Fair Work Commission application, the former President knew full well I am a single income homeowner with a mortgage, and could not risk losing my house or taking a chance on a process I had lost faith in. If former President Carroll and his solicitors did manage to convince the Fair Work Commission that my application was 'vexatious' and sued me for costs, even though that was not the case, I would have lost my house and he would have lost nothing as members were footing the bill for his costs. Continuing with the process was simply not worth the risk to my house and my emotional and physical health. As mentioned in my statement, I have heard former President Carroll say to someone on the phone regarding litigation that he will make sure those women lose their homes, so I do not feel that I had any option but to withdraw my application. One of the former President's solicitors, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, threatened to take legal action against me if I share what I know. We should not be forced to be silent when all we have done is tell the truth about the toxic culture that can be corroborated by others.

When I withdrew my application from the Fair Work Commission, I sent an email to the Fair Work Commission, which was also copied to then Deputy President Wade Burns. I explained all the reasons I was withdrawing my application and made a personal request to him to further investigate the allegations of inappropriate behaviour of PASA as there were still female staff members at risk. To my knowledge, the former Deputy President, and now current President Burns has not taken any action to safeguard female staff in situ at PASA.

Select Committee Submissions

Around November 2023 the former President's third Executive Secretary and I became aware that a Select Committee on support and mental health services for police had been convened to ensure appropriate services were being provided to South Australian Police officers. The third Executive Secretary chose to make a submission to the Select Committee in December 2023; however, I did not choose to make a submission until February 2024 due to continuing fear of repercussions from now former President Carroll.

I seek leave to conclude my remarks after the dinner break.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:45.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The letter continues:

In my opinion, sworn Police officer staff employed by the Police Association of South Australia, including the President, should be held to an even higher standard than civilian staff, that of course should also act with professionalism. Sadly, the standards of behaviour by the former President and current Assistant Secretary fell and falls well below what anyone would consider appropriate or professional. Unfortunately, the toxic culture spearheaded by the former President appears to have seeped into the bedrock of the Police Association, due to specific staff still employed at PASA. Yes, there is a new President but, as I mentioned, I am bitterly disappointed that the current President has actively driven a campaign to expel unfavoured members who question the leadership of the Police Association.

Also, although I am not aware how the information came to light, if President Burns did in fact sexually assault that female staff member as alleged, which seems to have been confirmed by Commissioner Grant Stevens, then I can't see how it is appropriate for him to be the President and CEO of a Police Trade Union that represents male and female Police Officers. A Police Trade Union that has NO oversight by any governing body in Australia, including the Police Federation of Australia.

All these issues surely must be addressed somehow to eliminate the toxic culture that still exists at PASA before equitable services can be provided to ALL Police officer members, despite whether they are favoured by male PASA industrial staff or not. In addition, mechanisms need to be put in place to protect and safeguard ALL staff, but particularly female staff, from the impacts of the toxic and hostile culture at PASA, as without an HR Department there is no protection. The only protections offered appear to be given to the niece of Assistant Secretary Whetton, and her best friend currently employed at PASA.

I write this letter to you as I can no longer deal with this matter, as it is very clear there are no protections for whistleblowers and the deck is stacked clearly in favour of those with the most power and influence and legal funding. Even at local government level, which I have now lost complete faith in, the truth does not appear to matter. It significantly saddens me to know that we apparently still live in a society which favours the power, money and influence over the truth.

I have nothing to gain personally by writing this letter to you, or from the submission I made to the Select Committee. In fact, I have done so despite very real fears of repercussions for myself. The Police Association exists for the service of its members and is funded by its members. As former President Carroll has said himself, 'the power lies with the membership', however, this power is overridden when the truth of what happens behind closed doors at PASA is actively hidden from the membership.

Thank you for your time.

You can see that that is a pretty harrowing and compelling statement from somebody who has experienced a nightmare situation working at the Police Association. Here is another short letter that was sent to me:

On 21/6/24 at the Police Association of SA retiring members dinner at Adelaide Oval, former President Mark Carroll was heard introducing his then Executive Assistant to a senior and well respected public servant as his, 'Door Bitch'. The EA was shocked as were others. The EA resigned from her position last month citing the workplace culture as the reason for her departure.

This EA was hired along with another EA to replace the previous 3 former female employees who lodged complaints with Fair Work Australia in relation to the workplace being toxic and dysfunction due to the leadership style of former President Mark Carroll and the behaviour of Assistant Secretary Steven Whetton.

It is our understanding that a current EA is absent from the workplace due to submitting a work cover claim in July 2024.

This brings a total of 5 women who have resigned from the Police Association in 2 years with a further 2 who are absent from the workplace due to extended leave or work cover both relating to the toxic workplace culture. Considering there are only 12 individuals employed at the Association, the alarm bells are ringing off the charts but no-one is listening especially current President Wade Burns!!!!

What will it take for female employees to feel safe in this organisation?

I was also sent these bullet points from another PASA whistleblower:

Mark Carroll

The former Police Association President Mark Carroll has been described by the majority of female employees as aggressive, irrational, immature, unpredictable, controlling, disrespectful and vindictive. His behaviour particularly since 2019 has been unconscionable.

His complete lack of leadership, fairness professionalism and respect particularly towards female employees gave male officials within PASA permission to behave in a disrespectful way towards others, particularly women and particularly towards Secretary Bernadette Zimmerman.

He referred to members of the Committee of Management, female employees and members as '[c's], [d-heads] and moles'.

7/6/21

Mark Carroll was talking about how much he hated Samantha Strange. He referred to her as a fat pig. He then said that he hoped she would hit a tree and die in a car accident.

19/8/21

Mark Carroll described female employees of PASA as, 'old, fat and ugly'.

Steve Whetton

Steve Whetton made it very clear to staff that he did not believe in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He referred to those members as 'weak'. He had no compassion for them whatsoever. He called them a range of names but in particular, '[f-wits]' and '[f-tards]'. He also used words such as '[d-head]', 'mole' and '[effing] idiot' to describe members.

22/5/23

Steve Whetton and Andrew Heffernan returned from Darren Mead's funeral. They said the venue was at full capacity and that it was full of the usual '[f-tards]'.

You will note that there is a consistency here from all the sources I have referred to in my speech this far. They are not making it up. They are not lying. They are credible and truthful individuals. They have been crying out for help and had nowhere to turn. They remain fearful of PASA's ruthless and expensive legal muscle, paid for not by those whom they have accused but from the fees of unwitting PASA members.

Since my last speech on this issue, the former president has categorically denied all the allegations that have been made against him and has challenged me to repeat them outside this place. He is most welcome to make a citizen's right of reply if he feels aggrieved or wants to challenge and refute the weight of accusations made against him by so many, including his sister. But he would not want to mislead parliament.

I certainly do not want to put PASA members through any more legal expense, as they have already had to cough up over $1 million so far in actions designed to keep all this out from public view. And it is true to say that they have not been tested in any civil jurisdiction to date, although Mr Mundy said they had been but has since been forced to correct his embarrassing error.

You can understand, from the gut-wrenching testimonies I have read out, why employee whistleblowers have been so reluctant to come forward until now. I have never known anything like this and it has been conveniently hushed up until now. Hopefully, there will be winds of change blowing through that wretched office, and it cannot come soon enough. It is up to the 4,500 members of PASA to exact that change and have a union management that promotes respectful workplace ethics and values, as unions are obliged to do.

There are some who might want to criticise me for what I have outlined here today and two weeks ago, but my intention is to protect the innocent and speak up for the underdogs with no voice and who cower in fear of retribution and losing their jobs. I do so because the truth needs to come out about the rogue behaviour of this union in order that it gets cleaned up for the benefit of its membership base, the reputation of SAPOL, and the ongoing safety of the union's employees. There should be a full, open and independent review of PASA's workplace practices, safety and culture.

Under work health and safety laws, organisations are required to manage the risk of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. A psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm—for example, harm someone's mental health. This includes anxiety, depression, PTSD and sleep disorders. Common hazards include job demands, poor support, management, poor organisational justice, violence and aggression, bullying, harassment and conflict or poor workplace relationships and interactions.

From the statements made to me, PASA ticks all these unwanted boxes. I urge union members to come out in force at the next elections and cast a strong vote for change. I urge delegates at next month's conference to demand change.

In the meantime, it is extremely disappointing to know that SafeWork SA is also investigating workplace issues right here at Parliament House. From my perspective, I have never experienced nor witnessed this type of behaviour in the period I have been here. I hope it is addressed and it leads to a better environment for staff. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.