Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-14 Daily Xml

Contents

BRIMBLE INQUEST

In reply to the Hon. R.I. LUCAS (6 December 2006).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning):

1. There is no specific South Australia Police (SAPOL) policy that articulates a requirement for police officers to declare whether or not partners, family members or close associates are licensees or have a financial interest in licensed premises. The Code of Conduct in the Police Regulations 1999, however, specifies that police employees must not knowingly place themselves in a position that creates or is likely to create a conflict of interest and if these situations arise they must be immediately reported.

In the SAPOL General Duties Manual, the General Order 'Conflict of Interest' provides that all SAPOL employees will at all times act fairly, independently and without bias in the performance of their duties. Employees are expected to exercise a high level of discretion, whether on or off duty, where personal involvement or interest and the exercise of formal police authority may be in conflict. A conflict of interest may arise out of circumstances where employees of SAPOL allow, or are perceived to allow, their own beliefs, associations, financial interests, activities or involvement in situations to interfere with the impartial performance of their duties.

Whenever practicable, employees must avoid becoming involved in matters concerning friends or relatives (including those who are employees) or in which employees have a direct personal interest. An employee will be taken to have an interest in a matter if an associate of the employee has an interest in a matter. This General Order also specifically identifies the requirements where an employee wishes to hold a licence under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, occupy a position of authority in a body corporate that hold a license or be an officer of a licensed club or a manager of licensed premises, the employee must seek approval from an Assistant Commissioner, Director or Commander and must meet the requirements of the Conflict of General Order policy.

Further, in regards to the SAPOL Secondary Employment Policy, employees will not amongst other things, be given permission to be a licensee, responsible person, or employee, servant or agent of a licensed premise, whether paid or unpaid: this applies to members on leave without pay, unless special dispensation is granted based on exceptional circumstances only. Where secondary employment is linked to special leave without pay, applications must be approved by the Deputy Commissioner.

The Policy also stipulates that secondary employment should not:

compromise the employee's position as a police officer

interfere with the employee's work performance

be likely to reflect discredit on the employee or the police service.

result in industrial conflict

cause any conflict of interest

be with an establishment holding an undesirable public reputation

advertise the employee's employment on the basis of them being a police officer; or

have an adverse effect to the employee's health or safety.

2. Secondary employment has been approved for 512 police officers since 1992. The specific nature of all approved secondary employment is diverse, ranging from lecturers at TAFE to small business owners, and all approvals are in line with the SAPOL Secondary Employment Policy.

In respect to licensed premises, in 2004 two police officers were granted special dispensation based on exceptional circumstances. The two police officers were involved assisting their wives in the operation of a coffee shop small business franchises where the requirement for a liquor licence was a condition of the franchise. In these matters the two police officers were provided with strict conditional approval. A third police officer was also granted special dispensation to sell or serve liquor whilst on Special Leave Without Pay in Ireland.

In 2005 a fourth police officer, listed as a non-working director in an investment business, was granted approval for secondary employment in the investment business. Amongst a number of investments the business owned a small country tavern. The police officer was not involved in the running of the tavern. The business has since been sold and the secondary employment approval has lapsed. This approval was an exception and it is anticipated that there will be no similar approvals of this nature in the future.