Page 1495 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
need to be utterly convinced that our police force remains accountable and holds up to robust examination. However, the ACT Policing annual report provided little information about complaints made against the AFP and in the last annual report committee hearings the previous minister refused to allow questions on the matter to be answered by Audrey Fagan, who appeared, understandably, to be embarrassed by the minister’s blustering and obvious dissembling.
Since 2002 there have been a number of calls on Australian and ACT governments to increase independent oversight of AFP anti-corruption processes and to overhaul AFP complaints processes. Now the role of police in anti-terror legislation is being explored before there is any government action to ensure police accountability. In 2002, the Fisher review into AFP complaints processes recommended an overhaul of the system. While the AFP provides ACT policing services and the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety sits on the Fisher review implementation group, the ACT has still failed to respond to the review. That responsibility has been left to the Australian government, which is also still yet to respond.
The Fisher review also recommended that the ombudsman have oversight of internal complaints. In the AFP 2004-2005 annual report, eight serious public complaints and 37 internal allegations were reported as substantiated, yet it is only the external complaints that are at present independently overseen.
In 2004 the Australian government announced that it would set up an independent body to address corruption amongst law enforcement officers at a national level. It said it would address as a matter of urgency the form that this body should take, but only now is there any talk of legislation being introduced. Apparently the proposed body will not even have the power to investigate managerial and administrative corruption. That is inadequate as, in my view, the definition of corruption should be no less than that of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.
In addition, I support the Australian Federal Police Association’s call to block the introduction of Australian workplace agreements in the National Crime Commission and police forces. If officers’ wages can be affected by their preparedness to report or act in certain ways then there is the potential to legitimise and foster an insidious form of corruption. AWAs give superintendents greater control over the pay, conditions and dismissal of their police and intelligence officers—as we know, they are by their very nature secret—and so are wholly inappropriate for maintaining the high level of ethics required in our police forces.
The AFPA has made a number of calls for an increase in police numbers, as they are facing a diminished capacity to conduct community policing and respond promptly to non-life threatening situations such as incidents in shopping centres. Maybe this is why community confidence in policing is falling.
The diminished investment in local policing is a dangerous situation, especially if the reason for diminished resources is the national security hype and increased funding and shifting of resources to anti-terrorism activity. I believe this is, in fact, happening. One of the most interesting findings from investigations following the London bombings was that local police have an important role to play in anti-terrorism strategies. Analysis in the US and UK has found that a strong relationship built on trust and mutual respect
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .