Another royal commission into an Australian police service, this
time in the west, has concluded. Like most royal commissions into
policing, it was created through persistent allegations of corruption
in the WA police service.
Media pressure reaches crisis point for the government of the day,
and it sets up a commission to show it is interested in ensuring its
police service has integrity.
The media has begun to circle in Victoria. Mutterings about the
need to have a royal commission as a way to “cleanse” the service
have been heard. Royal commissions can be entertaining one-offs, but
they are a very expensive external review option.
In Australia, we would prefer to think the entity of a police service
is corporately ethical, and those within it beyond question. History,
including several royal commissions, tells us that sometimes things
goes awry. When this happens, it may be that individuals have run
amuck, or sections have run amuck and, in some cases (thankfully rarely),
the senior management has gone astray in a big way, or a combination
of all three exists (even rarer). The results have been everything
from spectacular (Queensland’s Fitzgerald Inquiry) to rather bland.
Almost inevitable in all royal commissions is the notion of external
oversight. The WA commission was no different. It followed other commissions
by calling for an external oversight process. Now, as I understand
it, there was already an anti-corruption commission (ACC), but this
was to be replaced with the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).
Oversight of police services needs to be more immediate than are
royal commissions. The Parliament has regular processes for quizzing
heads of government departments, including the Commissioner. These
tend to be rather straightforward things because, usually, governments
of the day do not want to create a policing crisis – it is publicly
dangerous to them.
In South Australia, we have had some serious inquiries. Perhaps one
of the most notable – after the dismissal of former commissioner,
the late Harold Salisbury – looked into the drowning death of Dr George
Duncan in 1972. More recently was Operation Hygiene.
We have managed very successfully, as a general rule, to avoid external
review. There is a bit of a hiccup at the moment with the Parliamentary
Select Committee inquiry. This was created after the Democrats’ Ian
Gilfillan began agitating – or perhaps he continued agitating – for
a process of external review.
Whether the inquiry is to be serious or a bit of window dressing
remains to be seen. It is certainly not a quick overview. The interesting
issue of the inquiry is that it is not focussed – as so many other
inquiries are – on “bad behaviour of on-road police”. Nor is the police
culture its focus. Squarely in its sights is the management culture.
This identifies the two levels of oversight required for police entities.
The management culture is separate and distinct from the police culture,
even though most among the management are police. Indeed, when police
culture and management culture start to share too much, we can end
up with the potential for the Queensland police before the Fitzgerald
Inquiry.
When we get to the other tier of oversight – the behaviour of staff
– we get into the realm of complaints management and internal investigations.
Curiously, here is an area in which attempts to get new-world thinking
into police services hits the management culture. Here, the WA commissioner
raised issues similar to Justice Wood in NSW. Management’s use of
disciplinary processes, rather than “managerial process” has the capacity
for the management culture to become “them”. Here, the royal commissions
have historically identified the curious ways in which police commissioners
or police management cultures use the discipline processes.
Indeed, in my time in SAPOL, I have seen zealots come and go in the
areas of professional conduct services. These zealots will have people
charged for failing to walk the prescribed number of steps on the
beat, having a less-than-perfect PD39, or sneezing without permission,
because they think everyone besides them is evil, and any error of
judgement should be punished.
These people think they are stamping out corruption, whereas royal
commissions are more likely to allude to these actions as lacking
integrity and damaging to the organization.
The fact that a parliamentary inquiry was agreed to is, however,
an indication that the SAPOL machine has not been able to keep all
pollies at arm’s length. This is a potential breach in the “policing-is-magic-and-should-not-be-accountable”
standard mantra.
Over my 30 years, I have felt some security in the mantra. Police
are special, and lookout anyone who tries to take them on. However,
governments or, more usually, those in opposition, often want a look
inside because there are usually good headlines to be had. Governments
try not to go too public because there is a no-win situation for them.
What happens to their law-and-order platform (don’t all governments
have one) if an open inquiry gets some mud to stick on their commissioner
or police service.
Many years ago, the Police Complaints Authority was set up to provide
what some saw as a Clayton’s external oversight. There were many debates
at the time, and the curious entity was created with a new act and
an office, but with much of the work done under the auspices of the
Commissioner of Police. Is it external or internal? It certainly is
not an independent corruption or integrity commission. But history
tells us that such high-sounding notions of ACCs, CCCs or ICACs, or
the newer PICs (police integrity commissions), may not be any more
or less effective in achieving their charters than the PCA.
It is ironic that the media and pollies, who claim the need for
such integrity commissions, generally have poor credibility and are
seen as lacking integrity by the public. Independent community surveys
continually reaffirm that the public views the police as having high
integrity. Where are the integrity-review systems of the Parliament,
or the media? All in-house and tightly controlled.
So here I watch as the minor disciplinary provisions are used as
a form of abuse, and the notions of managerial counselling and education
become tools of bullies. The royal commissions have warned us – develop
a contemporary management-based system, or you will face external
criticism when the wall is breached.
When the existing system finds members not prepared to inform management
of abuses – because they have no faith in anything happening – that
system has failed. If there is no avenue for the independent review
of some of the bullying and abuse that exists in our system, where
does one go? Go up the management line. Go to the PCA or ACB. Or use
the Whistleblowers Act – and Caesar will likely investigate Caesar.
I have moved to prefer external oversight through a completely separate
and accountable agency, but the devil is always in the detail of how
such an agency might work. History around Australia does not provide
much hope.
It is about culture. Police management often refers to negative
aspects of police culture but ignores the negative aspects of police
management culture. If police management encourages bullying by refusing
to deal with bullies, regardless of their rank, the system is corrupt.
It is a cultural thing.
