Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

POLICE SERVICE BILL 2003 (No. 29)

Second Reading

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Public Safety - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The Police Regulation Act 1898 is the current act through which policing services are delivered to the Tasmanian community. The act has been in force for 104 years and whilst it has served the community and policing well, it is no longer contemporary.

The Police Service Bill 2003 provides for the delivery of contemporary and effective policing. Importantly, the bill contains a number of measures to further protect the police service against corruption. These include integrity tests, financial statements, and alcohol and drug testing.

The current act has been the subject of review since 1996. The first discussion paper was circulated in 1998 and stakeholder consultation has been occurring since 1999. In May of this year, a draft bill was circulated amongst government agencies, members of the Department of Police and Public Safety and other stakeholders, including the Police Association of Tasmania. The consultation process that was embarked upon within the Department of Police and Public Safety was extensive and involved conducting 55 information and feedback sessions at locations across the State. Extensive use was made of the intranet notice board, e-mail system and feedback sites. In total, 644 members attended the information and feedback sessions. The Department of Police and Public Safety change agent network was also involved.

The process was overseen by the Department of Police and Public Safety Police Service Legislation Steering Committee. The steering committee was provided with every comment received through internal and external feedback mechanisms. Every comment received from members of the Department of Police and Public Safety was forwarded to the Police Association of Tasmania.

As a direct result of the consultation process, a significant number of amendments were made to the draft bill. An updated version of the bill was then provided to every member of the Department of Police and Public Safety on 25 July 2003. Nine additional information and feedback sessions were conducted across the State by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Planning and Development), and 128 personnel attended.

The bill was further amended as a consequence of this consultation and a further version was provided to all members of the Department of Police and Public Safety in early September 2003. External stakeholders who requested later versions were also provided with them. Extensive consultation also occurred with the Police Association of Tasmania. The consultation with the Police Association of Tasmania has resulted in significant agreement - only one matter has not been agreed.

As can be seen, the bill that is presented today represents the end product of a significant consultation process. It is a significant piece of legislation that brings into the public arena a range of measures that will increase community confidence in the police service.

The bill is divided into six parts:

Part 1 provides for the commencement and interpretation of the act.

Part 2: Police Service

This part provides for the establishment of the police service, appointments, promotions, secondments, transfers, resignations, retirements, terminations, suspensions, probation, acting in a higher rank, duties of police officers, oaths and affirmations, and reversions.

The bill details the ranks within the police service. It has the flexibility to add or remove a rank. It also details how seniority between and within ranks is determined; this essentially reflects the status quo. It also enables the minister to determine the number of police officers after considering any recommendation of the commissioner.

The commissioner, under the direction of the minister, is responsible for the efficient, effective and economic management and superintendence of the police service. This includes but is not limited to: determining the organisational structure; determining the number, type and location of police stations, buildings and structures; determining and allocating duties; discipline; performance evaluation; training, education and development programs; and grievance resolution procedures. The commissioner's right to delegate responsibilities is also detailed.

The primary method of employment for officers below commander will be under the terms and conditions of the Police Award - and for a non-fixed term (permanent). The bill provides for all appointments above the rank of inspector, the ranks of junior constable - between 16 and 21 years of age - special constable and trainees to be fixed term. Provision is also made to appoint a specialist or expert - as a sergeant or constable - for a fixed term. Provision to appoint persons with policing experience or in special circumstances for a fixed term also exists.

The bill also provides for the appointment of special constables and ancillary constables. Special constables are police officers and are appointed to the police service - for example, cadets performing outstation duties or interstate police assisting on a special operations group call-out. Ancillary constables are persons employed outside the police service who require the powers of a police officer in their employment - for example, security officers at the Court of Petty Sessions. In both cases, the capacity to exercise the powers of a police officer can be restricted, thereby reducing the risk of inappropriate use of powers.

The bill provides the framework for a qualification and accreditation committee and the promotion selection committees. It also provides for the promotion of police officers and stipulates that promotion is to be merit-based. An extension of the promotion consideration is that conduct may be taken into account when determining who is to be promoted or recommended for promotion.

A provision to second or transfer a person to or from the police service has been included. It reflects the need for flexibility and recognises that members of Tasmania Police are often sought after nationally and internationally. It also provides for secondment and transfer to or from the State Service subject to agreement between the commissioner, the minister administering the State Service Act 2000, and the person concerned. The bill also continues the commissioner's right to transfer a police officer within the police service.

The provision in relation to resignations reflects the status quo - including the provision for not giving sufficient notice. This is to minimise disruption, especially in remote areas. The retirement provision mandates retirement at age 65 but has been extended to enable, with the written approval of the commissioner, a member to leave the service if they are affected by the 'inability to perform' provision. This allows for separation with dignity but does not impact on retirement benefits. This will be utilised by police officers who are unable to continue as police officers but who would prefer to retire rather than resign.

The bill provides for the commissioner to take action if a police officer, trainee or junior constable is unable to efficiently and effectively perform his or her duties through mental illness, injury, illness, disease, or general physical unfitness. The type of action which may be taken includes: counselling, retraining, reduction in salary or rank, reassignment of duties, transfer, demotion, termination of appointment or any other action the commissioner considers appropriate. This provision is similar to the inability provision contained in section 48 of the State Service Act 2000. A review mechanism exists for the majority of actions that the Commissioner can take under this provision. Currently, police officers who are unable to perform the duties of a police officer are subject to -

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

Mr LLEWELLYN - I will complete the sentence that I was reading from the second reading speech before the lunchbreak.

Currently police officers who are unable to perform the duties of a police officer are subject to ill-health retirement processes. The reality is that whilst some police officers cannot perform sworn police duties, they can still perform meaningful employment and the secondment and transfer provisions provide greater opportunities for those affected.

The bill enables the termination of appointment of a police officer, trainee or junior constable if the commissioner does not have confidence in their competence, integrity, performance or conduct; or due to the loss of community confidence. The bill also enables a police officer above the rank of constable to be demoted. This provision has the same effect as the provision contained in the current act, except that the 'loss of community confidence' aspect has been added. The 'loss of community confidence' equates to the 'bring the Force into disrepute' provisions of the current regulations. It is essential that the commissioner has the ability to determine these matters to maintain the integrity and the reputation of the police service.

Following consultation with the PAT, a stand-down provision has been included. This provision requires the commissioner, prior to suspending a police officer, trainee or junior constable, to stand them down for not more than seven days. Stand-down is with remuneration and allowances. The officer is not entitled to exercise any powers whilst stood own. A police officer, trainee or junior constable may be suspended with or without pay and is not entitled to exercise any powers or perform any duties whilst suspended. The suspension provisions reflect the status quo.

The bill enables the commissioner to place on probation any police officer who is appointed or promoted. This is to ensure that the police service and the police officer concerned are given an opportunity to ensure the individual is capable of performing at the required level. If the appointment or probation is not confirmed, the police officer has review rights.

Reversion rights have also been included for officers on an instrument of appointment - provided they were a police officer prior to the appointment. Unless the instrument of appointment states otherwise - or if their current instrument of appointment is silent on reversion - they are entitled to revert to the previous rank. Voluntary reversion to a previous rank has also been included to ensure individuals have this option should they desire it. The bill entitles a police officer who is acting in a higher rank to exercise the powers of that rank. This will ensure the community continues to receive the same level of service. Also included is the requirement to comply with any lawful direction or order in the 'duties of police officers' clause.

Part 3: Conduct

This part provides for a code of conduct in relation to complaints, integrity testing, financial statements and alcohol and drug testing. The focus of the code of conduct provisions is on behaviour management - as compared to the adversarial system that exists under the current act. The part applies to the commissioner, police officers, trainees, and junior constables.

If the commissioner determines that there has been a breach of the code of conduct, one or more of the following actions may be taken: counselling; reprimand; fine; reduced salary; reassignment of duties; transfer; probation; demotion; termination of appointment; or any other action the commissioner considers appropriate. Provision is made for the commissioner to recover any fine and to enable payment in instalments or deduction from salary, et cetera.

Parameters are set for the making, taking, investigating and determining of complaints against police. This is to enable better management of the complaint process and resources. On the completion of an investigation, the commissioner may resolve a complaint by conciliation or any other appropriate means. The actions that may be taken against a police officer, trainee or junior constable after a complaint is substantiated are those that may be taken under the code of conduct - action can also be taken for specific breaches of other legislation.

The bill provides for integrity tests to be conducted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a police officer, trainee or junior constable has, is, or is likely to engage in conduct that may constitute an indictable offence or an offence punishable by imprisonment, or is corrupt or seriously unethical. Any unlawful act or omission involved in an integrity test is lawful if authorised by a magistrate. This provision is fundamentally important to a police service.

A police officer, trainee or junior constable can also be required to provide financial statements where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a police officer, trainee or junior constable has, is, or is likely to engage in conduct that may constitute an indictable offence or an offence punishable by imprisonment, or is corrupt or seriously unethical. Financial statements can also be required by the commissioner for the purpose of allocating duties. Essentially this will occur in areas that are considered to be 'high risk' - such as the Drug Squad. Financial statements obtained under this provision can be used only for the purposes of the Police Service Act. Following consultation with the PAT, a legislated requirement to keep the information confidential, secure and in accordance with the directions of the commissioner has been included.

Alcohol and drug testing of police officers, trainees or junior constables is also provided for. A police officer, trainee or junior constable may be required to undergo a test for alcohol or drugs whether or not there is any suspicion of consumption. In addition, they may be required to undergo a test if an incident occurs involving a police officer, trainee or junior constable - who is acting in the capacity of a police officer - where a person is killed or seriously injured. The Commissioner may require a sample of breath, saliva, urine, or blood to be provided to, or taken by, an authorised person or qualified person. Following consultation with the PAT, blood is only to be taken with the consent of the police officer or if the police officer is incapable of providing consent - that is, unconscious.

Part Four: Reviews

This part provides for the establishment and operation of the Police Review Board - PRB. The PRB comprises five persons - including one chairperson - with appropriate skills and experience. Appointments are for a period of four years and are made by the minister. The PRB conducts reviews in relation to promotions, termination and demotion, and other matters. The constitution of each PRB is provided for in the bill but is generally comprised of three members. The chairperson must sit on all PRBs relating to promotion, demotion and termination, and 'other matters', if the applicant is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner. The matters that are reviewable have been extended during the consultation process.

The PRB reviews decisions relating to promotion up to and including the rank of inspector if the police officer is qualified for, and applied for, that rank. The grounds available are that the applicant is of superior merit or there was an irregularity in the process that affected the decision.

The grounds for review for termination and demotion are: there was an irregularity in the process that affected the decision; new information has become available; it was unfair; or it was invalid. Trainees and junior constables are able to seek a review if they are terminated or if a fine et cetera. is imposed because of a breach of the code of conduct. The Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner(s) and special constables are not able to seek a review of any matter.

The 'other matters' that the PRB can review include: a reduction in remuneration under the inability or code of conduct provisions; a suspension without remuneration and allowances; a fine under the code of conduct provisions; or a requirement to pay costs under the liability for damaged or lost equipment provision. The grounds for review are: there was an irregularity in the process that affected the decision; new information has become available; it was unfair; or it was invalid.

Applicants may have legal representation for reviews on termination and demotion and matters where the financial impact is 10 penalty units or more. Police officers can be represented by a person other than a legal practitioner on other matters, except promotion. The commissioner is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner only if the police officer is represented by a legal practitioner.

Reviews of matters outside the scope of the PRB - for example, counselling - will be dealt with through the grievance resolution process that the commissioner is obliged to establish.

Part Five: Offences

This part makes provision for various offences. Offences of bribery, impersonation and failing to assist a police officer have been included in the Police Service Bill.

It was identified during the consultation process that there was a need to provide a police officer with the power to require a person to state their name and address if the police officer becomes aware, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that a person has committed or is committing offences of bribery, impersonation or failing to assist a police officer. An offence of failing or refusing to provide name and address, or for giving a false name or address, has therefore been included. Consistent with other legislation, this offence invokes a power of arrest. An offence of making false or misleading statements in applications for appointment or promotion has also been included.

A police officer, trainee or junior constable must not fail to return equipment, clothing, firearms or ammunition unless the commissioner determines otherwise. To facilitate the reclaiming of property, a warrant may be issued that enables property to be entered and searched and equipment et cetera seized. This provision reflects the status quo.

Part Six: Miscellaneous

This part contains administrative, evidentiary, savings, transitional and other provisions.

Police powers are catered for under this part. As it is now, a police officer has the powers, privileges and duties of a constable at common law or under any other act or law.

A provision to protect a person from personal liability for an act or omission done or made in good faith, where that person at the request and under the direction of a police officer assists the police officer, has been included in the bill. This reflects the status quo although extends the protection afforded by the current act, which is limited to assisting in search and rescue operations. The protection from liability for police officers remains the same.

With the introduction of the State Security Unit, the Police Service has introduced police dogs. A provision has been included to allow for a police dog handler to be accompanied by a police dog when entering or being on a particular place. The provision also provides for protection from liability.

Provision is made for a police officer, trainee or junior constable, or a person who has ceased to be a police officer, trainee or junior constable, to be liable for the cost of equipment that is lost or damaged if they are unable to account satisfactorily to the commissioner for that loss or damage. This provision reflects the status quo. The protection from liability for police officers provision - clause 84 - is not intended to impact on the liability for lost or damaged equipment. Clause 84 is concerned with actions by third parties against police officers. The liability for loss or damage clause is considered essential to ensure that police officers are accountable for the public assets they utilise. A review provision, on both the decision and the quantum, has also been included. This extends the current rights. If payment is not made, it can be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Police officers at and below the level of inspector other than special constables, trainees and junior constables will continue to be covered by the Industrial Relations Act 1984. However, the bill excludes the Industrial Relations Commission jurisdiction where a matter is reviewable and in certain other circumstances. The review rights of police officers, trainees and junior constables are not eroded as the ability to have procedural fairness and the merit of decisions reviewed by an independent board continues. Indeed, there are some areas in which the review rights are broader - for instance in liability for lost or damaged equipment. The board will bring independence to the process but will also be sufficiently knowledgeable of policing, police culture and community expectations to ensure the standards expected by the community are maintained.

The bill provides for the sale or disposal of goods that come into the possession of police and that cannot be disposed of under any other act. It mandates advertising in a newspaper prior to sale. Proceeds are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. A limitation on liability has been incorporated with compensation not payable for property disposed of in accordance with the bill.

A provision to enable the commissioner to grant leave additional to that contained in the Police Award 2000 exists. This provision is intended to reflect the provisions contained in the current regulations, but is less prescriptive and therefore provides greater flexibility. It enables the commissioner to grant additional sick leave for ex-service persons; leave for defence purposes other than that required by Commonwealth law; leave due to injury sustained or illness contracted in the course of carrying out duties; or leave for any other reason the Commissioner considers appropriate. The commissioner can suspend the powers and duties of a police officer, trainee or junior constable during any period of leave where there is considered to be a risk associated with the use of police powers.

Occasionally, the police service is required to provide information, documents or services beyond normal service parameters. In these instances the commissioner may request the payment of any fee considered appropriate. These provisions do not apply to any service requiring payment of a fee under any other act.

The bill also provides for the establishment of regulations. Orders, directions, procedures and instructions are to be contained in the police manual.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Police Service Bill 2003 provides the members of the police service with contemporary legislation that has appropriate accountability mechanisms. It will ensure that standards are maintained and extended and enable the continued delivery of effective and efficient policing to the Tasmanian community.

Mr Speaker, I also want to give advance notice to members that I will be moving an amendment during the committee stage to amend clause 89(1)(b)(i) and 2(b)(ii) by deleting section 29 and substituting section 34. This amendment has been discussed with the Police Association and they are happy with it.

Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

[2.49 p.m.]

Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) - Mr Speaker, given that this is my first bill as shadow minister for police and public safety, let me say first and foremost that I am honoured to have this responsibility, and am genuinely interested in seeing our Tasmanian police service released to perform the duties that they aspired to do when they signed up to be police officers, and for their reputation and respect to be enhanced in the eyes of the community. I am committed to seeing the service deliver community safety and protection in an efficient way. I also accept that the delivery of these benefits should be appropriately measured and assessed. However, I will not in all good conscience see this happen if the cost is our police service losing the confidence and respect of the very people that they seek to serve.

Now before anyone casts any aspersions on this comment, let me say that it has become very evidence to me in my short period as shadow police minister that this is the greatest fear faced by Tasmanian police officers. Let there be no mistake that in the main our police officers are absolutely committed to community policing, and why would they not be? They are in fact members of this community. They play sport with us, they work with us, they serve with us in a variety of community groups, they socialise with us, go to church with us and generally are equally dedicated to building a sense of community with us. But over the last six months I have had literally dozens of opportunities to speak one-on-one with Tasmanian police officers and to hear their concerns about where policing is going in the twenty-first century. I would be foolish to suggest that these feelings are isolated to Tasmania. These officers are dedicated, hard-working and passionate about their jobs, but this very dedication and passion and, may I say, loyalty, has led many officers to speak out concerning the priorities of those policies often driven from those above them.

Please let us not hear these concerns as personal attacks on any individuals and consequently get all defensive. That is not the intention of my comment. Let us view these messages of concern as heart-felt words delivered to us by people at the coalface who want the role of police officer to be more than just a job. These officers have families and lives outside the service and, just like any of us, they desire to be fulfilled in the career of their choosing. They acknowledge that their role in our community is obviously more dangerous than most. They realise that often they are the recipients of consumer anger. They realise that they will be called on to perform duties that most of us would run a mile from. They know that the eyes of the community are on them and they know that they now need to police in the twenty-first century with all the challenges that this brings.

Let me tell you what I know from my limited time as shadow police minister. I know that the role of a police officer is a stressful one. I know that the strain on the families of police officers is enormous. I know that the rate of marriage breakdown for police officers is a tragedy. I know that too many police officers find themselves in a state of depression. I know that Tasmanian police officers are paid the lowest wages of all police services in the nation, and I know that the majority of police officers did not give their lives to be number-crunchers in a system of quotas.

Minister, I welcome this bill and recognise that changes do need to be made to bring our legislative framework into the twenty-first century. However, I do not see anything in this bill that will stop those people with the responsibility to make decisions from taking into account the concerns I have quickly outlined. I urge decision-makers, from you, Minister, down, and in this instance the commissioner as well, to take these concerns on board as protocols for the delivery of this bill are developed and delivered, if they have not already been made. The police service is a unique body; it is not an ordinary government department. This department carries the weight of community expectation on its shoulders, and this weight is felt by individual officers working away in our cities and towns. The community expectation of law and order is one of its highest priorities, and they ask for justice to be delivered in both a fair and natural way and, given this unique weight on individual officers, they need to be treated as individuals, and decision-makers should not be tempted to herd them in pursuit of a quick fix. Minister, a twenty-first century working environment for Tasmanian police officers should include at the very least a holistic approach to the care of the service members.

Mr Speaker, I now move on to specific matters relating to the bill before the House. After, I think, seven years and approximately 15 drafts, resulting in some major softening of the controversial aspects of this legislation, this Police Service Bill 2003 has finally arrived. As I said a few moments ago, we on this side of the House welcome it. As shadow minister, I have been working very hard and trying to develop relationships within the industry - if I can call it that. I have been pleasantly surprised at the number of police who have been prepared to speak with me about issues not only to do with this bill but also about the careers that they have chosen, and not all in a negative light. They just want to be able to communicate and have dialogue with me as someone who represents the other side of this Parliament. They have been more than forthcoming in sharing their concerns not only about current policing practices but also in some cases about some of the comments that I may have made in my early days as shadow minister.

Mr Best - My word, they're concerned about it.

Mr WHITELEY - You would not know which ones, though, I can tell you that.

Mr Best - Well, I do because they've told me about your speed camera comments, for a start.

Mr WHITELEY - You might just learn something if you listen.

Mr Best - Well, I've learned a lot from what you've been saying around the place.

Mr WHITELEY - You will learn a lot if you will just be quiet and listen.

I have also had two lengthy meetings with the Tasmanian Police Association and I have had a significant briefing, which I did appreciate, from Deputy Commissioner Johnston and Inspector Matthew Richmond. I enjoyed that and I look forward to continuing that relationship in a positive way.

The Police Service Bill replaces the Police Regulations Act 1898, together with the Police Regulations 1974 and some police standing orders. I nearly flipped when I saw that. As a new shadow, I thought that was extraordinary. Here we have an act of parliament that is literally 105 years old, knowing that the only two people in the House who were here at that time were the Speaker and Mr Hodgman.

Members laughing .

Mr WHITELEY - I was tempted to catch up with them on it but I ran out of time.

I think it is generally agreed, though - with great respect, Mr Speaker - that there is a need to provide a more contemporary framework for the delivery of twenty-first century policing. It is my understanding, Minister, that in simple terms this bill provides for a flexibility of organisational structure. It is my understanding it also provides a mechanism for contemporary conduct and management models. I also understand that it provides for a new range of accountability mechanisms which will go a long way to ensure that community confidence is maintained and, in the cases of those who do have some doubts over that, to restore that confidence in members of the community.

As I read the bill very carefully - and I have taken a great deal of time to wade through it - it is obviously quite distinctly divided into the areas that you have just spoken on. Each of those areas - 1 to 6, I think it was - provide a very insightful glimpse into the way in which policing in the twenty-first century needs to be conducted.

So after many years of discussion, it would be fair to say that the sticking points have been to do with integrity tests, financial statements and alcohol and drug testing. I think it would be fair to say that, through the process of the drafts, those areas have been the ones that have been the sticking points to those at the coalface. Following the final draught, and maybe even a fraction earlier than that, I believe that another few issues have been added to the list which, on behalf of police officers, I seek clarification on this afternoon. One of those areas that we need clarification on is the area of the removal of tier for appeal - there are a couple of questions we would like to ask in that regard. I should say, and I did not say at the outset, Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the bill, but we need some clarification on a couple of clauses. Some of that clarification came from my briefing recently but others we would like the Minister to place on record today. The second point of clarification was the process of dealing with officers where they are unable to efficiently and effectively perform their duties, particularly where they have been injured in the everyday pursuit of their duties - but we will come to those either towards the end of my speech or we can deal with them in the committee stage.

On integrity tests, that being one of the sticking points that has been there now for some time, the implementation of random integrity tests has, thankfully, been knocked on the head. Some police officers have said to me, 'If you have nothing to hide what would it matter? It doesn't matter. I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if they do. They can do as many integrity tests as they wish'. However, others equally - also with nothing to hide - had some concerns over the delivery of natural justice in this issue of random testing which some of them - and I think quite understandably - were classifying as potential entrapment.

I think it is great, Minister, that you and the department have obviously listened to those concerns and basically you have knocked the random integrity testing on the head. That has been a wise move on your part and I am pleased to acknowledge that. I think the earlier proposal was, from my view, totally unacceptable and looked awfully like some of those things that were being described by the officers themselves and this now brings them on board. They are now prepared to own the testing on reasonable grounds.

This bill now caters for integrity tests but only where there is a growing body of evidence or the old reasonable-grounds basis that would warrant such an action. Now only the commissioner can approve an integrity test. I am also pleased to see that where an illegal action such as trespass is going to be required in the process of that test then a magistrate will be required to give authorisation. I think that is also welcome and it is a safeguard on those people who are actually delivering the test itself. It gives more credence to that action and raises it to a level above any potential accusation of its not being above reproach. We welcome that and we are pleased to see that.

I do not know whether you are going to take notes now and try to address them in your summary or whether we do that through the committee stage. We would be happy to have much of it dealt with in your summary, that would be great. I would like to hear you today just explain a little bit about the obscure view that we have sitting in this Chamber - and I do not say this in a negative sense - of what reasonable grounds might be for the commissioner, either himself or by delegating the authority to others, to initiate an integrity test on a member of Tasmania Police. It would be nice to hear you today, or whenever we get around to it, place on record your view of reasonable grounds.

The other issue that I mentioned just a moment ago as one of the other sticking points is this whole issue of financial statements. As an ex-bank manager, I was quite intrigued to see this and maybe I will come to that in a minute. This portion of the bill now gives the commissioner power to request a financial statement if he or she as commissioner believes that there are reasonable grounds to suspect an officer has engaged, is, or is likely to engage, in conduct that I would describe as unbecoming. I would like today to pursue the thoughts of the minister and, through him, the department on the requesting of financial statements on an officer - and I am trying to get my thoughts together here. Where the magistrate is asked to give permission, and there is a growing body of evidence and reasons to pry into an officer's personal finances - and we are not saying we are going to vote against the clause whether or not there was ever any talk that such an intrusion, albeit generated through reasonable grounds, was ever contemplated to have to be given authority by a magistrate. I would be interested to know whether that was ever up for debate.

It says here that financial statements may be required to be given by those officers seeking to be allocated duties that will be published in the police manual. We will support this clause of the bill given that an officer may be entering a potentially high risk role such as working in the Drug Squad but again I would like, Minister, for you to place your thoughts on the record today because I do not have the police manual as such and it is also obvious to me that some of the protocols that are going to be required to deliver this bill are either not known to me, or are still being developed. Either way that is not a hit, it is just an observation. I either do not have them or they are still being developed and sometimes the devil is in the detail and in the delivery rather than in the bill itself. So I would like you to maybe talk about your interpretation of allocated duties. The Drug Squad is obviously one, there may be others.

Having been an ex-bank manager, the other thing that concerns me about the financial statements is that sometimes it is easy to be, shall we say, hoodwinked a little by looking at someone's income and expenditure. I could call on you today to provide an income-and-expenditure schedule for me and I could say, 'Gee, he or she is sailing very close to the wind and on paper it looks as if they're under financial pressure'.

However, they might be an individual who is very much in control of their finances. Circumstances may have arisen where pressure has come on for a short period of time. They may be a person who does not, in my eyes anyway, waste money on expenditure that others may choose and yet on paper they may appear to be fractionally risky under the interpretation of what I think is going on here.

However, equally you could have somebody who was living in a situation - and it may not be them personally - where a gambling habit was a part of their lifestyle but might not actually show up in a financial statement. To me the person who is sailing close to the wind on a financial statement which seems to indicate that they are under financial pressure, might not in fact be so, but there could be someone slipping through the net who has a gambling habit, for example, or even, dare I say it, some other habit that would pose, I believe, a greater risk.

I hope that makes sense - I did not write those words down, they were coming out of my head - but that is something I would like to explore: how far and wide-ranging the pursuit of these financial statements would be. For example, if it came to the notice of the senior officer and then obviously the commissioner that constable X had a word in someone's ear and said that constable Y had a gambling problem and they were concerned as a colleague, where does that leave the department in relation to chasing down the financial statement? I trust that makes sense.

The issue of alcohol and drug testing is obviously another one that was for some people a major sticking point within this bill. Given the role of police officers and the potentially dangerous circumstances they often find themselves in, it is by no means unreasonable to expect that officers are free from the influence of either alcohol or drugs or sadly both.

The Police Association are accepting of this section of the bill and I, together with them understand fully the duty-of-care compliance issues and the OH & S standards that need to be maintained with any work force. I think this particular section of the bill is, as I said, by no means unreasonable and would have our full support.

These alcohol and drug-testing opportunities, as I understand them, Minister, are to be random in nature and can also be used at a time where an officer has been involved in a serious incident and I think that is more than acceptable. I did pursue a particular line of questioning with the Deputy Commissioner in the briefing and I was more than happy with his response to that. But today I want to get on record your interpretation of where this provision is going to impact on an off-duty police officer in a single-officer station, where he or she is called into work without notice. As I said in my earlier comments before I started specifically on the bill, police officers have lives just like the rest of us and they are just as entitled to go home after a hard day and have a few beers with their mates or be at a barbecue in a rural or isolated town only to find themselves being called into an awkward situation in the local community - and which we appreciate from them. A police officer is a police officer 24 hours a day, but for some it is an even bigger work load when you are in a single officer-type station. So, Minister, I would like on the record your interpretation of how that is going to work in relation to these tests.

The new Police Review Board will consist of five members appointed by the minister after consultation with the commissioner and the Police Association. I am pleased to note that the board will consist of neither the commissioner nor a representative of the Police Association - that is my understanding. All matters, as I also understand from this section of the bill, with the exception of industrial relations EBA-type matters, will be handled by this new Police Review Board. Such matters, as I understand - and correct me if I am wrong - will include appeals to do with disciplinary disputes, promotion, demotion and termination issues. I could be tempted at this point to go off at a tangent and talk about my suspicions, or suspicions of some even within the service that particularly the issue of termination should not be included in this particular part of the bill. Termination being the last resort, so to speak, needs some avenue of appeal. We will be supporting the bill and we will support this particular clause but I do want to place on record our concerns in relation to the make-up and the skill sets of this review board. I know it is always difficult but I would like you to place on record how you see this review board and the sort of people from within our community who would be on those boards. It may be, after you have given that response, that we may still be a little unsatisfied with that and we may have to have a chat about putting more descriptive directions in that particular clause.

We will, with a degree of hesitation, understanding that the Police Service - again, without any offence - is a different animal from most other groups and industry groups in the community. There is no doubt about that. It is a unique body, as I said in my initial comments, and therefore this uniqueness does dictate in some ways that sometimes things need to be dealt with in-house. However, there is some hesitation on this side of the House in relation to this clause and we are very anxious to hear your opinion on the make-up of this board. In fact, it says that you will make the appointment after consultation with the commissioner and the Police Association. Will this board, for example, be made up totally of legal eagles? Will it have anyone on it from the police service? Will it have ex-police officers on it? Will it have the average member of the community - community workers, a local alderman, past politicians? How do you see this board being made up, given its absolute importance and the discretion that it will have to use to deal with issues ranging from disciplinary disputes, promotions, demotions, and the obvious end game termination. I think we need to hear that from you today in relation to that, and I understand that my colleague, Ms Putt, probably has even more hesitations than we have.

The next issue is the inability, Minister, to perform duties; we have some concerns in relation to this. This bill provides for the commissioner to take action if a police officer, trainee or junior constable is unable efficiently and effectively to perform his or her duties through mental illness, injury, illness, disease or general physical unfitness. It is probably a good thing I am not a copper.

Mr Hidding - The deputy commissioner probably agrees with you there.

Mr WHITELEY - I am not sure.

The commissioner has options at his or her disposal, ranging from counselling to termination of employment -

Mr Llewellyn - Take you out and do a few route marches, eh.

Mr WHITELEY - but I tell you what, you do not need any enemies when you have friends like your colleagues there, really.

Obviously, if an officer is unable to perform the duties they swore an oath to do, there does need to be the capacity to remove this person from the role. We again accept that, and we accept, as I said, that the police service is a unique body and it does need flexibility and room to move because at the end of the day there is no other option than to deliver a service that has total community confidence.

I would like, Minister, to seek some clarification from you of the processes to be used under this section of the bill, especially where an officer has been injured at work, and, whilst unable to perform operational police officer duties, still has a capacity to work, but under workers compensation and all those things would not have been deemed sufficiently injured to go on a pension and receive benefits that would be enough to care for one's family. I understand that within this there is the capacity to transfer and to find suitable work duties within the service, however it does not say that that is guaranteed. It says that there is the capacity, I think.

At the end of the day, too - and I am not suggesting this would happen - the last thing we need is to be filling up the police service with people who do not have the capacity to deliver the duties which the community and this House would expect them to do. However, if an officer, he or she, has dedicated their lives to the service of the community, been through training, put their lives on the line every day they put their uniform on, only to find themselves injured at work in the provision of safety and protection of the community, I do not believe that the clauses in here are strong enough to guarantee that person - injured at work, I am talking about - a job into the future. I believe that should be strengthened.

I will do a little bit of work because we are going to have a bit of time this afternoon, but we need to hear your response to that because, in my view, if someone has given themselves to the service of the community only to be injured in the line of duty, if we cannot find them a job in the police service - if they have 80 per cent capacity - it should be guaranteed, I believe, Minister, that they should be found a job somewhere in the State public service. I have looked through it two or three times but I am not sure that there is a link between finding a job in the police service and the State service, and I would be interested in your comments on that. I am not suggesting for one minute that if somebody does their back in on a ski weekend we have to go to that degree, but when someone has been injured in the line of duty as a serving police officer in Tasmania Police, and has a capacity to contribute to the work force, I think we have a greater responsibility than I see here. I will be happy if I am wrong; if I am wrong just tell me.

I would like to wind up before 3.30 p.m. because we then go into private members' time and that will give Ms Putt an opportunity at 5.30 p.m. This bill represents a new direction in Tasmanian policing. There is no question that the commissioner will, as a result of this bill becoming law, have far more power to structure, manage, discipline and make accountable members of Tasmania Police. There is no doubt about that.

The Police Association of Tasmania realise the change has been needed and, having basically signed off on the bill, still hold some concerns as to the delivery of the new legislation. I would like to think that today I have communicated those concerns adequately. I hope I have; I hope I have not let them down. It is not just the association; it is the individual police officers, as I have said, whom I have met with over the last few months talking and introducing myself and getting a feel of what is happening in the service. There are still some concerns about the delivery and I understand that we are not going to get the i's dotted and t's crossed with that. I suppose it comes down to good faith. But I have a responsibility, Minister, as you would have had no doubt in your time as a shadow, to have you as the minister of the Crown, place on record your interpretations, views and opinions on some of those matters that I raise and no doubt other matters that my Leader and colleagues, and no doubt the Greens, will raise as well.

Police officers around the State are seeking from me and the Liberals assistance in clarifying those issues that instil a little bit of fear in them. We are all subject to fear from time to time when our environment is changed. Nobody is different. I am sure even the deputy commissioner and the commissioner would understand that when environments change, when governments change and all those sorts of things, change instils fear. If we do not respect that as a fundamental human characteristic, we are failing in understanding our fellow officers and fellow human beings. We need to work with them to make sure that their fears are allayed.

Just to take the debate a little further - which is nothing really to do with this bill - they are also seeking from me and the Liberals support for the wider issues facing Tasmania Police officers, not the least being negotiation for better wages and conditions. I made those comments at the beginning of my speech quite genuinely and intentionally. If I can just make this a little bit more personal than probably it needs to be, in my previous life, before I was a member of parliament, as a full-time pastor in a church I had many occasions to deal with police officers who were finding the pressures of work quite overwhelming. My capacity was dealing with people who were struggling even in marriage issues and depression issues. So I spoke those words, Minister, and members of the department, out of my not just recent knowledge but my long-term understanding of the genuine and unique pressures that come on the members of Tasmania Police and police services all around Australia.

I know those pressures are equally a challenge to ambulance officers, for example, but we are not talking about ambulance officers today. I think their request for me to be a combatant for them in their negotiations with wages and conditions is certainly a fair request and it is incumbent upon me to do my research to more fully understand the needs and aspirations of nearly 1 200 serving police officers, not to mention those in emergency areas. It is a large and important part of our community and there is no doubt that this bill has been softened significantly from its first draft and that, as I have said, is to be welcomed. It is generally accepted now I think by both members of the department and the Police Association that this bill is far more palatable to those at the coalface.

We welcome the bill, as I said earlier. We will support it but we will take the opportunity to pose a range of questions, probably through the clauses, should the response from the minister not be what we want or not be adequate to at least address some of those issues.

I want to finish by just highlighting what I thought was quite a succinct vision and mission statement of the police department. I have to say that I was not aware of it until I became shadow minister. I think we would all join with you, Minister, on this side of the House particularly, and with those people at a senior level who serve with you in the formation of policy, that the vision of Tasmania Police to be widely recognised as a premier police organisation is a very worthwhile vision, and one that I would embrace and support. The mission of the police service is always interesting. What is the mission? If you did a poll on the streets of Hobart, or Burnie where I come from, of what the mission of Tasmania Police is, you would obviously get a range of opinions, but the mission as stated by and owned by the police department is to ensure that Tasmania is the safest State in the nation.

I think it has probably been tradition in this place to use opportunities such as responding to major bills like this to get on a soapbox and whack a few other issues into the nets as well. I think this bill deserves more respect than that today, and I will not be taking that opportunity. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I think we will leave that subject of where that is all happening and the mission of the department et cetera for another day. No doubt there will be plenty of opportunities to do that, but I thank those who have had a lot to do with this. I thank the Police Association who, on behalf of their members, have fought valiantly to knock out some of the hard-line portions of the bill. They have succeeded. They have done well. They have represented their members well. I think they can feel quite fulfilled with the role that they have played, so I pay tribute to them.

As I said, Minister, we will support the bill, and we look forward to your response. I look to the contributions of other members on this side of the House and the Greens, who will no doubt have similar concerns, and others. We will no doubt have an opportunity to address those later in the day. I am not going to filibuster even though there are three minutes to go.

[3.27 p.m.]

Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I will commence my contribution now, but obviously I will be giving the substantive portion of that following private members' time today. I would like to start by putting on the record very firmly the Greens' strong support for Tasmania Police. We, as all other members in this place, I think, appreciate that it is most important for Tasmania to have a strong police force whose integrity is beyond question, who are well resourced and who are employed in sufficient numbers to fulfil the very important function that our society relies upon them for. We do not, as has sometimes been portrayed, have some particular antagonism to the police, but what we do have is a very strong commitment to ensuring the highest possible standards are pertaining throughout our police force so that officers will not be operating in a context in which there is some question as to their integrity and where, therefore, public faith in the police force would be diminished. That is not a situation that anybody wants to see. We have seen other States in that predicament. Indeed I have lived in a place when I was growing up which was notorious in New South Wales as one of those areas where the integrity of the police force was in question and I know first-hand the debilitating effect that that has through the community for the upholding of law and order, which is something of course that citizens are utterly reliant upon. We all want a society where we have a strong police force that we absolutely trust, and the Greens are very much committed to that.

This new legislation is obviously well and truly due.

Debate adjourned.