Industrial

Opinion

Mark Carroll President Police Association of South Australia Police Federation of Australia

“W hen I was first posted out here, it took a fair while before the community accepted me and started to trust me. That’s just how it is when a cop is first posted to a remote indigenous community.” Rebecca (not her real name) is a member of the Police Federation of Australia and she works in a remote indigenous community. She asked for her posting because she is committed to genuine reconciliation. Out there, it’s hot and dry. The red dust and the little bush flies get into everything – your eyes, your nose, your ears. It’s a dry community – or it’s supposed to be. There’s plenty of rubbish, plenty of broken-down cars and plenty of engaging little kids who don’t go to school nearly as often as they should. That’s the reality of life on a remote indigenous community. “We do lots of ordinary cop stuff dayto-day – but stopping grog getting in is the hardest,” Rebecca says. “We can’t be everywhere. “When the grog does get through, the trouble starts. The simplest thing, like snarling at someone else’s kid, can plunge the community into violent chaos. Some families have been fighting for so long they can’t even remember why. It can get really scary. “At the same time as trying to keep people safe, we have to try to keep our hard-won community relationships intact. “Building trust and understanding with indigenous communities takes time. You have to work to maintain those relationships – but it’s hard to do that from under the bus where your government has thrown you.”

a government and a department of public prosecutions hurrying to be seen to be doing the “right” thing in the face of ill-informed clamour and political correctness. Justice should walk on both sides of the street. The Police Federation of Australia, which represents more than 63,000 cops, is angered by this murder charge. Constable Rolfe and his family have the full support of cops and their families right around Australia. As police officers, we put ourselves in harm’s way every day to protect the communities we serve. We expect our members to be accountable, absolutely, but we also expect our departments and our governments to back us in when things get ugly. As Rebecca said: “Building trust and understanding with indigenous communities takes time. You have to work to maintain those relationships – but it’s hard to do that from under the bus where your government has thrown you.” Rebecca is a police officer who lives and works on a remote indigenous community outside of the Northern Territory. “But it’s not always like that. Once you earn the trust of the community, it is the best place in the world. The beaming smiles, the welcomes – all these things are incredibly precious. I’ve learned so much.” Rebecca despairs at the recent Yuendumu tragedy. Of course, she feels for the young Walpiri man’s family but, like police officers across Australia, she’s standing behind Constable Zach Rolfe. “It could have been any one of us cops in any one of the hundreds of remote indigenous communities we look after,” she says. “Years of building trust and understanding has been lost. It’s a horrible tragedy whichever way you look at it.” Inflammatory and intemperate remarks about the Yuendumu episode in mainstream and social media outlets have made an already delicate situation worse. Many of the people who contributed to this commentary, including politicians, should know better. Constable Rolfe is a decorated veteran of the war in Afghanistan and the recipient of bravery awards. Now, as well as the murder charge, he faces investigations by the NT Coroner, the government ombudsman, the Office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and a police professional standards tribunal. Of course, this tragic episode must be investigated fully but police officers all around the country are rightly outraged that Constable Rolfe has been charged with murder. And so quickly. How can this young constable, with an otherwise exemplary record, be charged with murder within four days of the event – and long before these other investigations have been concluded?

It’s hard not to see this murder charge as the charge of the “right” brigade. It’s a cowardly response from

Industrial

The legislated 25km emergency-service speed zone has failed as a safety measure. It was supposed to create the safest possible environment for police and other emergency workers dealing with incidents on the road. When they were doing that, in the vicinity of an emergency vehicle with flashing red and blues, passing motorists were to reduce their speed to 25km. And, from a safety perspective, many thought cutting the limit from 40km, as it was previously, to 25km made perfect sense. But for police, who stop motorists hundreds of times a day across metro and country SA, this 25km speed zone is dangerous. It comes into play – with neither signage nor any other warning – as soon as a police officer stops any driver or rider. In cases in which drivers have tried to brake suddenly, to comply with the 25km limit, other drivers have crashed into them from behind. And, naturally enough, the risk of such crashes is far higher in zones with speed limits as high as 110km. A motorist travelling at that speed would need to have spotted the 25km zone a long way back, perhaps hundreds of metres, to avoid a crash. Adding to the risks, particularly on highways, are bends and obstructions which compromise motorists’ forward vision of 25km zones in which police are working. The 25km emergency-service speed zone became law in 2014. Just one year later, disturbing stories started to emerge about the true effect it had had on police working our roads.

At the Police Association annual conference of 2015, delegates saw unsettling footage of just how close one officer had come to losing his life as he assisted a motorist. Other such examples of near misses then started flowing in from members caught in similar situations. On the Princes Highway last December, two cars collided head-on just near Tailem Bend. One driver had been slowing for a 25km emergency-service speed zone. In the zone were two motorcycle cops who, with lights flashing, had stopped to help a motorist whose caravan had lost a wheel. Vehicle B hit vehicle A – which was slowing for the 25km zone – causing it to spin out of control and smash into one of the police bikes. The only positive was that neither officer was on that bike at the time. Speed zones of 25km are appropriate for established emergency scenes such as bushfires, house fires, industrial accidents, special events, and driver-testing stations. But involuntarily creating a 25km speed zone, simply by undertaking a traffic stop or dealing with some other incident, is a threat to police-officer safety. Hence the need for review of the current legislation. Parliament passed the Road Traffic (Emergency Service Speed Zones) Amendment Act 2013 nearly seven years ago. The act required the minister to review its provisions within three years and table a report before both houses of parliament.

In January 2016, the Police Association advised then police minister Tony Piccolo in writing of the multitude of hazards associated with the emergency-service speed zones. In July 2017, the association advised then police minister Peter Malinauskas of exactly the same hazards. In April 2019, the association wrote to Police Minister Corey Wingard with all the same advice it had provided the two former police ministers. His response was that the Australian Road Rules Maintenance Advisory Group was to consider aligning the states and territories on the issue. But, now, in February 2020, the 25km emergency-service speed zone remains unchanged. A fatality is not how police officers want to achieve legislative change. What has changed is the way police can safely regulate and control some of the most notorious roads in the state, such as the South Eastern Freeway and the Sturt Highway. The Work Health and Safety Act 2012 rightly forbids members placing themselves or others at risk while working on roads. But the 25km emergency-service speed zone has done exactly that – repeatedly. One can only assume that, when the legislation was being drafted, the reality of day-to-day police work wound up overlooked. What seemed like a good idea at the time – supporting legislative change to reduce the emergency-service speed zone limit from 40km to 25km – has simply not delivered. In fact, it has produced a far less safe traffic environment. Compromising the safety of police officers, as they fulfil their duties on the roads, is unacceptable. Police Association members seek an urgent change in legislation. The time for reviews is over.

Steve Whetton Member Liaison Officer Police Association

Police officers out in their communities interact with people of every social stratum. Those people come with demands, expectations and, at times, self-preoccupation, all of which accord with their upbringings, maturity, mental capacity and life experience. The nature of police work, insofar as time constraints and risk management is concerned, is such that officers frequently have to make decisions and take actions in an instant. These actions can become the subject of complaints by offenders, complainants or members of the public. Almost every police incident comes with an aggrieved party. An individual can make a police complaint through the Office of Public Integrity or at a police station. The member concerned is then subjected to the processes of the Police Complaints and Discipline Act 2016 as his or her actions are assessed against the SAPOL code of conduct. The member might face disciplinary charges which include penalties such as termination, reduction in rank, or a fine. SAPOL has a duty to keep the history of employees as per regulation 55 Police Regulations 2014. This history includes: • Any punishments the commissioner imposes. • Particulars of any penalty imposed on the employee. • Any other particulars required by or

under the act or regulations or directed from time to time by the commissioner. There is, however, a process by which to remove any history of punishment or penalty from the member’s record as per Police Regulations 2014. Expungements only relate to Police Disciplinary Tribunal matters in which a penalty has been imposed. Section 56 of Police Regulations 2014 (Removal of entry relating to punishment or penalty) stipulates that: (1) If— (a) there is an entry recording a punishment or penalty in the history of an employee; and (b) not less than five years have elapsed since the entry was made; and (c) no further entry recording a punishment or penalty has since been made, the employee may apply to the commissioner in writing to have the entry, and any previous entry recording a punishment or penalty, removed from the employee’s history. (2) On receipt of such an application, the commissioner— (a) may, if he or she thinks fit, order that the entry or any previous such entry be removed; and (b) must in any event advise the employee of the commissioner's response to the application. The way the process works is that the member must submit a police report to the commissioner through the officer-in-charge of Ethical and Professional Standards Branch. This is to request the removal of the relevant punishment or penalty from his or her Human Resource Management Branch personal file. When requests succeed, the removal occurs, but not from the Ethical and Professional Standards Branch files in which it is required to be maintained. The punishment or penalty will not be reported to any selection advisory committee when the member applies for a position or promotion. However, details will be reported to the commendation committee for awards/ medals and other probity-related matters.

Medals

The SAPOL service medal is presented to employees in recognition of continuous, diligent and ethical service as per general orders (Awards). The award consists of a medal, a miniature, and a ribbon bar for a continuous period of service and clasps for further periods. Ethical service is defined as: … consistent and unequivocally high standard of personal and professional conduct in accordance with the relevant Code of Conduct and the Leadership Charter.

The district, local service area or branch forwards a report, including its recommendation on the diligence of the member, to the commendation committee via the Awards Marketing and Events Section. The grievance process for cases in which decisions are taken to defer, refuse or revoke awards is found in the relevant general order (Awards). Members must – within one month of receiving notification of a deferral, refusal or revocation – submit a report to the Awards, Marketing and Events Section.