HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (POLICE OMBUDSMAN) ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:30): Before I move my motion, I concur with the earlier remarks that Thursday morning is a time to look forward to, when the chains come off and members can speak more freely. I think the time for private members should be extended. I move:

That the Police Complaints Authority (Police Ombudsman) Annual Report 2011-12 be noted.

I do not know whether members have had a chance to read the annual report of what is now the Police Ombudsman, but I think they should. In fact, just taking this issue a bit broader, I do not believe that as a parliament we scrutinise thoroughly the various agencies that are funded via this parliament, and the Police Complaints Authority is one. It reports to parliament, but I have yet to see someone from the Police Complaints Authority front up, or anyone from a lot of other agencies. Members will say that we have the estimates committee process. That process is a farce. It is not a scrutiny process: it is an orchestrated media event—

Mr Pengilly: That's a bit harsh.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, it is. It is orchestrated to get a headline on behalf of the government and obviously others: the opposition. It is not an environment in which you can have the sort of scrutiny that they would have, say, in the US Congress or even in the federal parliament, in the senate. We should move to a system where agencies are brought before the parliament and properly questioned.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: In the Legislative Council, the other place, they have some committees that do some of that sort of thing, but the House of Assembly should be involved in questioning agencies in the interests of ensuring that there is proper accountability and activity.

The reason for my particular interest in this matter stems from my own experience and that of constituents. I appreciate that there have been some changes with respect to the name of what was the Police Complaints Authority, but the changes need to be more than essentially cosmetic. We now have—or we are about to have—an ICAC, but I do not believe that that in itself will address some of the concerns I have with the current arrangements that pertain to the Police Ombudsman.

If members read the report of the Police Ombudsman, I think they will get the sense that it is not really a hard-nosed body that scrutinises what police officers are alleged to have done. In fact, it looks more like a letter from a close relative. The Police Ombudsman, Sarah Bolt, in the introduction to her report, points out that the complaints handling process is set out in the act. She states:

...delineates a relatively close working association with SAPOL for the investigation of police complaints falling within the jurisdiction of the PCA.

She abbreviates the Police Complaints Authority to the acronym PCA. It continues:

This prescribed relationship between the PCA and SAPOL, and the manner in which complaints are investigated pursuant to it, is an enduring criticism of this office and its work.

The PCA is now called Police Ombudsman. She goes on to point out that:

....it deliberately follows the model of 'external monitoring of internal investigation,' rather than creating a truly independent investigative agency.

She continues:

...police have the requisite knowledge and expertise that enables a more effective investigation than might otherwise occur if every matter were investigated by civilians.

Further on she states:

...it is a clear expectation of the Act that the majority of the investigations will be conducted by [the Internal Investigation Section].

I am not happy about that relationship. Once again, it is getting back to Caesar having a look at Caesar. There have been some minor changes but historically even the Attorney could not request or require the Police Complaints Authority (now Police Ombudsman) to investigate anything. If it chose not to investigate something, then that was it; basically that was the end of the matter.

Quite obviously the Police Complaints Authority will get some complaints which are not worthy of investigation. In fact, of the 1,119 complaints received in the year 2011-12, 34 per cent resulted in no further action because some were out of time; some were matters currently before the courts; improper complaints; insufficient interest; anonymous complaints; matters subject to a right of appeal; industrial matters; or otherwise without merit.

That all sounds fine but the big deficiency—and I found this from my own experience—is that they say that they cannot deal with a matter involving police conduct if it has been dealt with by the court. The problem is that a lot of these matters that require investigation have not been dealt with by the court.

In my own case the police officer admitted that he falsified the results of his testing of the laser. I presume he got a letter—I did not see it—from the Police Complaints Authority at the time (the Police Ombudsman) telling him that he was a naughty boy and that he should not do it again. When I followed up in relation to asking what punishment he got for his behaviour, I was told that it was a private work history matter and that I could not be told. In other words, there is no true accountability in terms of a public officer and what he or she has or has not done.

The other aspect—and it was not considered in the court—was the fact that the officer changed the expiation and was in a different location, not only to where he pulled me over but at a new location. He was even further down the road because he could not fit in this 500-metre vision of my car. There was no camera involved.

When I wrote to PCA and said, 'You can go out and investigate because nothing has changed. You can measure it to see that what that officer said was false; that he was not telling the truth.' They said, 'No, we're not interested', basically. I will paraphrase—'We're not interested; we're not looking at it. The court has looked at it.' Well, the court did not look at that as it should have and so one is left high and dry.

I will use the case of a constituent of mine—I will not use the surname; I will use the Christian name—Max. This case involved a family at Glenelg following their wedding anniversary. The incident resulted in police allegedly assaulting members of that family who came to the assistance of other distressed family members. It went to court and the Police Complaints Authority refused to investigate the case saying that the matters involving alleged police brutality would be considered during court proceedings.

Well, that did not happen. One of the deficiencies in the system is that the police ombudsman and their officers use this excuse that, 'We can't look at it. We don't want to look at because it has been before the courts.' That is only valid if the court examined that precise point. In many cases, and I have just indicated two and I could give others, that has not always been the case.

I think there should be greater emphasis and a requirement on the police ombudsman to investigate matters relating to police conduct which have not been properly or thoroughly considered in a court action. Just because something goes to court does not mean all aspects of the police behaviour have been examined. I do not think you need to be a senior counsel to understand that.

Essentially what I am saying is that I think the government should—and I call on the Attorney, in particular—have a look at the current provisions as they relate to the police ombudsman. I think there needs to be a review to make sure that it is able to do what I think the public would expect it to do. It is more than just whether a police officer was rude to someone; it has the power and it should investigate other matters in an independent way, in an impartial way, that currently get through the system because there is no proper scrutiny or accountability.

There is too cosy a relationship between the police ombudsman and SAPOL, and I think there needs to be a clear separation. I do not believe it is appropriate to use police to investigate themselves, certainly not serving members of the South Australian police force. It is possible to have other structures and other arrangements in place.

I urge members to read the report. It will not indicate the deficiencies in the current system; they become apparent if you have had first-hand experience, and I am sure that members here have corresponded with the police ombudsman or the former Police Complaints Authority and have not been satisfied with some of the responses. You have no comeback. If they say, 'We are not interested. We are not going to look at it. We don't want to look at it. It has been looked at,' then you have no comeback. Not even the attorney can direct them or request them to investigate a matter.

It is time for a review. If you are going to have a police ombudsman, let's have that organisation that can actually do what people would expect it to do—that is, investigate matters impartially, independently and comprehensively—and not allow the threat of a workload to justify them not carrying out proper and thorough investigations.

Our police force here, SAPOL, is one of the best in the world—certainly one of the best in Australia, if not the best—but it does not mean to say that it does not at times have matters which need to be considered on an independent basis. I do not think we have the mechanism in place. I do not think the new ICAC will do it. You cannot expect the ICAC commissioner to be looking at these sorts of matters, and he or she (it is a he currently) may be able to make some requests under the new ICAC law but I still think there is a lot of deficiencies in the system and the attorney should be able to require the police ombudsman to carry out an investigation if the matter is raised with the attorney. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:44): I rise to speak on the member for Fisher's motion that the Police Complaints Authority (Police Ombudsman) Annual Report 2011-12 be noted and I fully support his motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that as a former police minister you would have seen a lot of these reports in your time, and I think every member of this house should look at them and should take them very seriously. I also agree with the member for Fisher that any body like this that is making an investigation into any government department—but particularly one as important as the police which has such an impact on people's lives on a day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year basis—must have the resources it needs to do its job, must have some genuine teeth when it comes to acting upon the outcomes of its investigations, and must also have some very genuine independence in the way that it operates.

I note that, since the member has put his motion forward, it has been announced by the government that the Police Complaints Authority will be shifted to ICAC, so I wholeheartedly hope that the ICAC will pursue this area of work as it should with resources, with teeth and with independence. With regard to police complaints in general, as a local member of parliament, I receive both brickbats and bouquets for the local police, and I always take what I get with a grain of salt to begin with because, typically, the people who come to complain about the police, may be right or they may be wrong, and it is always very important to hear the police side of the story as well.

I do not mind saying that there have been times when the person with the complaint, in my opinion, has been completely wrong, and there have been times when the person with the complaint has been completely right. I commend Commissioner Gary Burns for his very open approach. He is on the record saying, 'Tell us, let me know, we need to improve. If we've done something wrong, we will get to the bottom of it,' and I think that that approach needs to be taken.

The other thing that is important is there is a very wide range of community views when it comes to policing. There are people out there with a take no prisoners, lock 'em up, throw away the key attitude, and there are also people out there with a very strong view that we are over-policed, we do not need interfering in our lives, just let us get on with it, trust us. Of course, as with most things, the truth is in the middle, but dealing with an issue like the Police Complaints Authority, or even for them to do their job, it is important to put in that framework, that is, there is a wide range of opinions about police.

I think that is particularly true in a country that values its freedom, its citizens and the independence we have in Australia, like we do. I think people in other nations with a far more autocratic totalitarian society would not even think about it. We are lucky to be able to even think about these things in South Australia. With regard to the report, I will touch on a few things. During that year 1,119 complaints were received within the jurisdiction. It is interesting to note that 6 per cent of them (which is the smallest number in any category) received full investigation and 34 per cent, which was the second largest category, received no further investigation. So, 67 of those 1,119 complaints were fully investigated and 380 received no further investigation.

No further investigation is something that the member for Fisher touched on, and it might be because the complaint was lodged more than six months after the issue, the issue was before the court or the issue was considered to be frivolous or vexatious. There is a whole range of reasons why it might not be investigated, one of which is that the person might want to remain anonymous. There are certainly times when that might be completely appropriate, but it does understandably raise alarm bells when somebody wants to make an anonymous complaint.

There is a range of reasons why these complaints might not have been dealt with, and I think it is important, as the member for Fisher highlights, to look into those issues and to be sure that it is for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons that they are not being dealt with and not being investigated, and that there is not any cover-up or lack of resources. In relation to resources, I note that on page 20 of the report the Police Ombudsman, with regard to complaint backlog, said:

Despite the introduction of more efficient complaint handling practices a risk of a complaint backlog is a constant concern. Scant resources, legislative Audit and FOI external review responsibilities, the unrelenting flow of complaints and the complexity of certain matters contribute to the risk of a backlog occurring. Notwithstanding the PCA will continue to closely monitor the situation and attempt to deal with complaints as expeditiously as possible.

Again, I hope that the shift to the ICAC will ease this very important backlog issue that the Police Ombudsman raises. Resources must be given to any authority like that if they are going to do the work that they are supposed to do. On page 21, under the heading 'The year ahead', the Ombudsman makes some bullet points, one of which is 'expand our presence in key country areas of South Australia'.

Of course, as shadow minister for police, I am interested in every page and every line of this report. But as the member for Stuart, I am particularly interested in country, rural and regional issues, and I do believe that there is room for more resources to be put for further investigation into issues that are raised by way of complaint against the police in country areas.

It is a very interesting issue, too, this complaints by numbers business. Of course, a reduction in the number of complaints might well—and let's hope—indicate an increase in police performance, but it might also be that people feel less inclined to complain, or they believe that their complaint might not be taken so seriously.

I also highlight what seems to be a discrepancy to me; it might be that I have not quite picked up on it. On page 11 of the report, it says that a total of 1,119 complaints were received, but on page 23 of the report, in 'Appendix 1: Summary table', it says that 1,384 complaints were received. There is a note further down the page talking about a discrepancy in numbers, but it is not this discrepancy in numbers. It might be that I have not picked it up, but it might be that some investigation is required there.

Another thing I think is important to point out, and this is under appendix 2, is that of all the different categories of complaints against the police the highest number of all is the category of negligence and/or failing in duty. Again, just harking back to the reasons people might complain, they might complain because they feel they have the right, and that is a very positive thing, and they believe that their complaint will be investigated. It might also be because there is a high level of negligence. I cannot actually tell from the numbers, of course, which it would be. It is also worth pointing out that, while there were 414 complaints in that department for 2011-12, there were 323 of those complaints in the year before, 2010-11. So, for one reason or another, that category is certainly growing.

This is an important report, and it is a very important point the member for Fisher raises. Any internal investigation, including into the police, must be done properly—must be well resourced, must have some genuine authority to act upon recommendations and also must be independent. We in South Australia have the best police in the nation, both by way of a range of indicative measures but also in regard to community confidence. Community confidence in our police is higher in South Australia than in any other nation, and the police are to be commended for that. But, as Commissioner Gary Burns has said, we open ourselves for scrutiny. If we have done the wrong thing, we want to know. If people are complaining about the police vexatiously or without merit, or perhaps for all the right reasons but they are just wrong, the police will fight back hard against that, but the police will also cop it on the chin when they have made a mistake, and that does happen.

In wrapping up, I say, as shadow minister for police and also as the member for Stuart, in a very large chunk of regional South Australia, we are lucky to have the police we have. I thank them for the work they do. But I, in all my roles, will continue to be vigilant, on behalf of the public I represent, to make sure that the police are doing the very best job they can possibly do on behalf of the people of South Australia. The police department is not a department that has the right to go off and do its own thing on its own behalf. They work on behalf of the people of South Australia, they are a service to the people of South Australia, and when they are not serving the people of South Australia appropriately they should be thoroughly scrutinised.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:54): I want to quickly contribute to the motion moved by the Hon. Bob Such, the member for Fisher. As has been mentioned in this place previously by the member for Stuart, there are always two sides to a story. I compliment the South Australian police force. I agree with the member for Stuart; I believe that we have the best police force, one which enjoys the highest regard and confidence of the community. That does not mean to say that they are not liable to criticism or that there are issues out there, because there always will be. I do not care who you are or what you are doing: there will always be criticism and we can always learn from it.

As the member for Stuart has said, I also have lots of people come into my electorate office regarding issues with the South Australian police force and they want to make a complaint, and a couple of instances come to mind. We encourage them to put the police complaints form through and the issue that I really do have is that, when that police complaints form is being investigated, on quite a few occasions it has been investigated by the same LSA and the same police station the complaint is being levelled against. That is not true independence, and I believe that moving it across to ICAC will reinforce and further enhance the confidence of the community that any of those complaints will be dealt with independently of the South Australian police force by the ICAC.

There are always two sides to a story and my philosophy has always been to get the other side. I can relate a couple of instances. We had a blitz by outside police coming into our electorate some time ago and there was a lot of emphasis being put on road safety and vehicles, etc. I agree that we have to make certain our vehicles are maintained and sometimes we do need a bit of a reality check, but a couple of the issues were that people said they were getting expiation notices and being booked for trivial issues like a dirty number plate or a piece of equipment that may have been on the back seat unrestrained by a seatbelt, and things like that. If that was the case, that was very trivial.

I could have easily gone to the media about all these issues, so I had a discussion with my LSA superintendent at the time and he said, 'If you have got proof that this is being done, and there are such expiation notices out there, I will investigate that.' I went back to these constituents and said that we would argue and fight on their behalf if they brought in the expiation notices. Not one brought in those expiation notices. So, whilst we may have issues out there, if there is a real issue and they have an expiation notice, I will be the first—as will the member for Stuart and other members in this house—if it is trivial and unnecessary and really not required, to fight it, but there are always two sides of a story.

What the member for Stuart said about the reports was interesting. There were 1,119 complaints, only 6 per cent were fully investigated and there was no action on 34 per cent. I think that is a real issue. I think we need more action because quite a few of them have come back saying no further action and we do not see the results of those internal investigations, and that is something we really need to understand as elected members of the communities out there.

I would love to ensure, and argue very strongly, that the government, when going forward with the ICAC, if we are going to do this correctly, must provide the correct and sufficient funding. Funding is one issue but they also need to sufficiently and adequately resource the ICAC to ensure that we do not have any backlog, we have openness and transparency and we make certain we do it to the best of our ability as a state and a community.

In closing, I congratulate the new commissioner, Gary Burns. I think he will be an excellent breath of fresh air—with no disrespect to the previous commissioner. Gary has had a lot of time out there and I have had lots of dealings with him and I think he will be very good; and, certainly, he is operationally focused.

Also, I welcome and congratulate the new LSA superintendent in my region (which also covers some of the member for Goyder's area), Scott Denny. I have had some discussions with Mr Denny on two or three occasions now and his philosophy has always been open and transparent communication between the local council, the state member of parliament and the community. I congratulate both Gary and Scott and, hopefully, they will be there for some time.

I want to see Scott Denny, the new LSA superintendent in my area, be there for a long time. Far too often we have had LSA superintendents come in, and be there for a very short period of time and not be able to build up the community liaison. It is about the liaison and the communication with our community; that builds up trust both ways, from the South Australian police force as well as the community. Again, I congratulate the member for Fisher.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT