Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1616 ..

themselves in operational matters. We recommend that when the legislation is created it be clear that the Minister's ability to direct the police should be an ability to direct the police on policy matters, not operational matters, and that decisions and directions given by the Minister on policy matters should be made public.

That arrangement works well and satisfactorily in relation to the Federal Police and, after the Fitzgerald reform process, the Queensland police. Of course, the Fitzgerald reform process showed what can happen when things go wrong in that area of ministerial and political involvement with policing operations. While it is essential that the elected government of the day have a degree of policy control over police, it is very sinister if an elected government starts to think that the police force is its agency to be used for its political purposes. The Fitzgerald royal commission recommended that some of the malpractice that emerged could be remedied by limiting the ability to direct to policy matters and by making any directions public.

Mr Speaker, I would hope, and I am sure that my colleagues would agree with me, that this report could be implemented fairly rapidly. We were pleased that there was unanimity in the evidence coming before the committee that this step was essential; that there be this level of accountability. We would hope that as that view was supported by both Federal Police management and the ACT Government, in so far as the Attorney-General's Department gave evidence, it could be reflected politically as soon as possible in an agreement between the ACT Government and the Federal Government. When as responsible Minister I foreshadowed this matter with the Minister for Justice a year or so ago, the indication was that the Federal Government would look kindly upon it. The fact that this Assembly, as I hope it will be, is unanimous, as the committee has been, would convey to the Commonwealth Government that this is clearly a matter that is important for the development of the ACT and reflects the will of the entire house.

I would like to thank the secretary of the committee, Margaret Jones, and the researcher, Chris Papadopoulos, who did much of the drafting of the report. I would hope that this report could be rapidly implemented. Taking off my hat as committee chair and putting on my hat as Opposition spokesperson on policing, I can certainly assure Mr Humphries that the Labor Party will fully support the Government in moving to this next stage of accountability. We believe that it is essential that the Minister of the day, from whatever party, have proper control over policing in relation to policy matters. As a result, the community of the ACT really assumes the ownership. While we are talking here, as we must, about legislation to create a statutory commissioner who reports to the Minister, the political reality behind that is that the Minister who is responsible for the police is accountable to this place for the actions of the police and thus accountable to the community of this Territory. That is the way it should be. We would certainly support Mr Humphries in his endeavours to negotiate this rapidly with the Commonwealth Government.

I should mention the issue of a separate police force for the ACT, that is, a stand-alone body. While some support for that concept has been floated from time to time, the committee takes the view that we should not go down that path at the moment. To start with, there just is not the evidence to assess the financial aspects of creating a stand-alone police force. We would really need some years of experience with a more accountable AFP arrangement before any sensible decision could be made on that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .