HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLICE RESOURCES

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:27): Given that the minister has just claimed that the Police Complaints Authority is completely independent, is it correct that the Police Complaints Authority actually uses the Internal Investigation Branch of SAPOL to investigate a number of the complaints that go to the authority?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:28): Exactly; indeed, as an independent commission against corruption does.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: 'Ha, ha!' he says. The great Rob Lucas laugh. That is exactly what happens, because who do you think—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Let us just reflect on this.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: By his behaviour, the Hon. Rob Lucas has just shown his contempt, and not only for this parliament; he obviously has contempt for the police as well. Of course, he is not averse to attacking anybody and everybody. But let the Hon. Rob Lucas reflect on this for a moment. Who has the skills to conduct investigations other than the police?

The Police Complaints Authority has a staff of somewhere in excess of 20, I believe. Incidentally, under the opposition's policy that it released yesterday it says that it would get rid of the authority, which employs something like 20 people. So, when members opposite are talking about this $15 million budget for this new body that they are talking about, if ever their policies come into effect, it makes one wonder, if they are going to absorb this, who is actually going to do the work? How are they going to do all the work that the Police Complaints Authority does now and all these other tasks they are wanting to do with a budget of $15 million when they claim they are going to get rid of this particular body?

We have this nonsense. They are trying to peddle this bit about secrecy; they are trying to use this argument that, somehow or other, the Police Complaints Authority is in some way a secretive body.

Of course, it is for very good reason. If there is a disciplinary proceeding against a police officer, it might involve matters such as phone tapping or police procedures. Is it in the best interests of the detection of crime in our community that at a public forum details of police operations and how police operate are exposed—which could advantage criminals? If members opposite spoke to people, they would know that there is a public interest defence for police officers so that details of their operations are not always released; because it would damage their effectiveness and help criminals in this state.

Maybe that is their purpose and maybe that is what they want to do. There are very good reasons why details of police operations—and often they could be exposed during police complaints and disciplinary tribunal hearings—should not be made public. There are very good reasons why that should not be the case. There are very good reasons why they should not be made public.

When one looks at the opposition's policy for a proposed model for a South Australian independent commission against corruption, it states that, in order to overcome and minimise the risk with an ICAC, it is proposed to make it an offence to disclose or publicise the fact that a complaint about a particular person has been made to ICAC. The opposition not only put out this policy and says it will be an offence for anyone to publicise it but it also has the gall to try to deceive the people of this state by saying that, somehow or another, our procedures are unnecessarily secretive.

It is true that disciplinary hearings are part of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act that members opposite introduced. They put up the changes to the act; and the whole parliament supported the act for very good reasons. We do not necessarily want details, which might indicate, for example, how one might get around phone taps, being made public. We do not want to disclose the names of informants. We do not want unnecessarily to put this information out into the public arena. That is why there are reasons for it. If members opposite want a cheap headline or a run in the paper, how easy is it to talk about excessive secrecy? But when their own policy comes out, they say that they will make it an offence to disclose or publicise the fact that a complaint about a particular person has been made to ICAC.

As I said earlier, the Police Commissioner did respond to the article by Colin James in Monday's Advertiser. It is completely false to claim that DVD piracy is rife amongst police. Hundreds of police officers across South Australia have not been caught using their work computer to illegally copy DVDs, as the article suggested. In this instance, a system audit identified electronic files in some areas of SAPOL that required examination. The instruction from SAPOL's Director of Information Technology reminded managers that if copyright infringements were occurring it would be a criminal offence; and some senior officers have been briefed on potential copyright issues and have agreed to an audit. However, that audit is still to be completed.

In the article in The Advertiser the reporter also claimed that an official investigation which would lead to criminal charges would not be conducted because of the large number of police officers involved. Again, that is incorrect. It was incorrect that the Police Commissioner responded that 'police are no different from other members of the community'. If there are breaches of copyright law, and they are identified as part of the audit process, they will be referred to the internal investigations branch and an independent and full investigation will occur without exception.

The article was quite misleading, and it is disappointing that the shadow minister for police should accept the article rather than make an inquiry to SAPOL or read the paper afterwards when the Police Commissioner responded and indicated that anyone who is guilty of breaching those laws would be dealt with under the proper procedures. It is absolutely abhorrent for a shadow minister of police to suggest that there is a fault in the procedures or that police are not following it up and to give credence to a misleading newspaper report. We ought to make sure that the police in this state are well aware of the lack of support from members opposite. In fact, it is worse than a lack of support: it is how little opposition members of this parliament think of them.

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