Page 976 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(b) Refer to the answer to question 22.
(24) Based on an activity survey completed in December 2003, it was determined that 6.6% of the effort of ACT Policing is spent on Commonwealth activities. The FTE figure of 0.9 for the Chief Police Officer reflects the 6.6% being removed, rounded to the nearest point. Under funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the ACT, the Commonwealth meets approximately 10% of the cost of the Chief Police Officer’s position.
(25) The two ACT Policing Deputy Chief Police Officer positions, along with the position of Director, Corporate Services, are counted in table 3.1 on page 92 of the Annual Report as “Commander/Director”. The figure shown in that table of 2.8 represents three FTE less the 6.6% attributed to Commonwealth activities for each position. Costs associated with these positions are attributed between the Commonwealth and the ACT in a similar manner to those for the Chief Police Officer.
(26) Recruitment panels within the AFP are constituted in accordance with AFP Commissioner’s Order 7, Selection of Personnel for Engagement, Assignment and Advancement. In accordance with Order 7, a Joint Selection Committee is constituted by:
• a Convenor nominated by the Australian Public Service Commission or other independent external body;
• a person nominated by the AFP Commissioner who should be familiar with the functional area; and
• an AFP employee representative.
For advertised roles within ACT Policing, at least one member of the Committee is drawn from the appropriate business area within ACT Policing.
(27)
(a) Complaints involving ACT Policing members are investigated by AFP Professional Standards in accordance with arrangements for the provision of enabling services to ACT Policing. Analysis of complaints and the identification of emerging trends is undertaken by AFP Professional Standards. The results of such analysis are provided to ACT Policing on an “In-Confidence” basis.
(b) Historically, ACT Policing has reported on the number of complaints received and the manner in which they were finalised. It would not be practicable, nor appropriate in some circumstances, to include further details for all complaints.
(c) The three complaints that were reported in the Annual Report as “advised to pursue elsewhere” were managed utilising the Australian Federal Police’s Workplace Resolution Guidelines, rather than the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, as the matters specifically related to workplace issues and conditions, rather than any unethical behaviour by the individuals concerned.
(d) At the conclusion of any such investigation the disciplinary action taken, if any, reflects the options available under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office is advised on each occasion and may call for a review of the outcome if it is deemed necessary. No such review was called for regarding any of the four cases. For privacy and confidentiality reasons, case details are not released to any other party.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .