December 1998 Volume 79 Number 12 "serving the protectors"
Readout

Appropriate Caps

The Editor

The baseball cap issue is around again.

The issue here is not the baseball cap per se, but it may well be the solution. The peak cap is uncomfortable and unsuitable for the majority of the work we do, whether in the car or on the street.

Let me state outright that I believe we should wear some “appropriate headwear” that is appropriate both in comfort and appearance. How many times has the non-wearing of a peaked cap raised the adverse comment of a passing supervisor/commissioned officer, and all of us have been told to “put your cap on”. It’s the last thing you grab when you get out of the car. Your primary concern is radio, torch, safety vest, baton.

A common-sense approach to this dilemma is what is appropriate for wearing so that you are inclined to wear it under all circumstances, like RBT, beats and event policing. What is distinguishable to members of the public or, above all, what is appropriate for occupational health and safety issues?

If you stand at an RBT station or at a public event for a long period and you get a headache from wearing the peaked cap, is the solution don’t wear it? Or is it to have a cap that is really comfortable, then there is a real likelihood that everybody will wear it at all times. There is a real need and an opportunity now to address this issue.

A commissioned officer once stated that the peak cap is “your badge of office”. I believe our badge of office is not any one piece of uniform or equipment but the professional way we do things.

Bruce Hartley
Sergeant 1964/0
Southern Command Traffic.

Association’s Invaluable Support

Dear Peter

I had hoped that I would never have to write this type of letter to the Police Association, but the cruel hand of fate has determined otherwise. I am, of course, writing in relation to the breach of regulations that I and others were the subject of earlier this year. I am not going to comment on these charges as I feel that they have already been the subject of too much public debate and discussion.

I do, however, wish to express my heartfelt thanks to certain people. Firstly, I would like to thank yourself, Mark Carroll, Andrew Murray and your entire staff for their understanding, encouragement, words of wisdom and patience during the entire duration of the incident. The Association office was a safe haven in which we could meet, knowing that we were among friends. To the admin. staff, I miss your ever-smiling faces, not to mention the free coffee and biscuits in our “outside office”. Thank you.

I am also very appreciative of the service that Trevor Haskell and his staff at Welfare Branch extended to myself. To any member who may find themselves in a similar situation in the future, I cannot recommend highly enough the services of Trevor and his colleagues. When everything seemed overwhelming, Trevor would have something to say which put everything back into perspective.

I don’t wish to turn this into an Oscar acceptance speech, so to all those who offered support and understanding, a very sincere thank you. To those commissioned officers who were not afraid to offer friendship, support and encouragement, thank you. You know who you are.

Lastly, and most certainly not least, I owe a great deal of gratitude to Chris, Karen, Mick, Julie, Paul and Tina in addition to David, Pam and Amanda. They say that shared adversity draws people closer and lightens the burden. Never a truer word was spoken. I thank you all and look forward to years of future friendship.

Again, thanks everyone.

Brian Kitto
Constable 176/2
Adelaide Division.

History of No Support

The Editor

In his President’s Message (Police Journal, November ’98), Peter Alexander comments on the Government’s refusal to indemnify police against litigation arising from the performance of their duties.

It may have always been thus if the following is any indication.

In 1876, a fire destroyed the Old Coach and Horses Inn Hotel at Caversham on the Old Port Road. The licencees of the hotel were Henry and Hannah Peel. At the subsequent inquest, the jury returned a finding of arson by a person or persons unknown.

Police enquiries continued and this resulted in Superintendent W. Peterswald laying an information against the Peels for maliciously setting fire to the hotel.

They were committed for trial, but the Crown solicitor declined to prosecute the matter further claiming there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction (sound familiar?). This was despite the protestations of Peterswald, supported by the opinion of the Police Court magistrate, Mr Beddome.

With the prospect of no prosecution ensuing, the Peels took action against Peterswald for malicious prosecution. Peterswald, not surprisingly, sought the assistance of the Crown solicitor to act in his defence.

This assistance was denied him by the Attorney-General citing the provision of Section 104 of Act No. 15, the Police Act, 1869-70, which provided in such an event the officer must defend himself, but if the verdict goes against him, the damages etc may (my emphasis) be paid out of the Police Fund.

The result is not recorded in the archives but there was obviously no adverse professional outcome for Peterswald who succeeded George Hamilton as Commissioner of Police.

Ray Killmier
Member,
SA Police Historical Society.

What About Morale

Dear Editor

Hats off to Bernadette Zimmermann for her recent column, An Inspector - At Least, in relation to the selection and appointment of the new Equity and Diversity Unit manager. I just wish we could have taken bets on who was going to be appointed to the position because the outcome was so certain. Pity there wasn’t any such certainties with the "lucky dip" selections for Local Service Area positions.

I know that I am flogging a dead horse, but I thought the amendments to the Police Act - which the Commissioner so fervently sought - were supposed to have all these magical in-built abilities to wipe out cronyism and "jobs for special best friends".

With the Christmas season approaching, I would have expected a certain amount of festive cheer, but the reality for so many members is that they are thoroughly fed up with the current unsettling conditions within SAPOL which sees them being treated as mere chattels, who are not entitled to an opinion which dares differ from on high.

There are 101 reviews, surveys and research enquiries currently under way. Wouldn’t it be nice if one of them actually seriously looked at morale and then even more surprisingly, actually did something positive about it.

Merry Christmas
Karen Robinson.

A Question of Skills

Dear Andy

Having been a member for 21 years and having never found need to publicly refute comments contained in the Police Journal, I now find myself in the position of breaking that tradition.

In Bernadette Zimmermann’s column, An Inspector - At Least, she implies the total lack of ability of the members applying for the position of manager, Equity and Diversity Unit when she states:

...where has adequate training and skill been given to the extent that any of those incumbents could legitimately apply and be successful with such an application.

Surely if this argument is true then no one in SAPOL is qualified. Perhaps what Ms Zimmermann has ignored is the capacity of forward-thinking, fair-minded people to develop these skills, both inside and outside SAPOL, as a means of personal development and self-fulfilment. Perhaps they have such a keen interest in the subject, because they have recognised the deficiencies within SAPOL, that they want to do something positive to improve it. Rather than the “skill being given” we could focus on whether the skill has been acquired by the applicants, then the merit argument may be capable of being assessed. People need to realise that SAPOL is not the only means of gaining the requisite skills to do the job.

Broad general statements such as those of Ms Zimmermann are totally counterproductive to not only the healthy future of this organisation, but also the people who are trying to make a positive impact on its future.

Haydon Coulls.

Quota Issue

Dear Sir

I wish to respond to your editorial in the October 1998 issue of the Police Journal.

I find it strange that I am accused of shooting an anonymous messenger. Equally I am disappointed on the emphasis you placed on my comment to The Advertiser relating to so called “quotes” and an internal enquiry.

I strongly denied that members were required to submit a set number of Infringement Notices. I quote, “We dismiss the notion completely”. In response to the question “Will there be an enquiry to ascertain who leaked the document”, I responded by saying that I would be enquiring as to why the member considered it necessary to leak such a document.

I would have preferred to discuss the reason for such release of the document with the member than a reporter from The Advertiser.

Equally disappointing was the fact that the member chose not to discuss the content of the memo with the author, the Divisional Senior Sergeant.

I did not see my role as shooting the messenger but attempting to correct an unprofessional practice of releasing police information without authority and failing to provide me with an opportunity to discuss the reason for the memo.

I was not embarrassed by the actions of the Senior Sergeant for commending those who had done a good job and questioning the low return of work performance of other members. In fact I personally commended him for his action in monitoring the output of staff members.

Yours faithfully
Graham Brown
Assistant Commissioner.

Response

That Graham Brown has decided what constitutes “unprofessional practice” is concerning enough. But in his letter, he confirms that he supports the very practice about which I expressed concern in my October editorial - quotas. He endorses the monitoring of members’ output by virtue of numbers - infringement notice numbers. To monitor work performance in this way serves only to engender the good-cop, bad-cop syndrome.

And why do leaks to the media occur in any case? Because, as I wrote in my editorial, if rank-and-file police don’t feel they’re being afforded proper hearings from managers, they’ll not approach them. There’s a right way of listening to subordinates’ grievances, but it’s not practised by all managers.

Be that as it may, this is still a democracy, in which we’ve now all had our say.

Andy Dunn
Editor