The Police Association Journal november 2009

5
Secretary’s Message
By Greg Davies
Police Regulation
Amendment Bill
The significance of the welcome
defeat of the Police Regulation
Amendment Bill in the Victorian
Upper House last month should
not be under-estimated.
It is extremely rare that proposed
legislation can be so bad as to
warrant it being blocked in the
Victorian Upper House by its
opponents, especially after a Bill
has been tabled in the House for
more than a year. Added to this was
the lengthy window of opportunity
to properly consult with those
potentially affected and make the
necessary amendments to ‘get it
right’. The Government refused and
consequently copped what everyone
outside Government expected.
Let’s be absolutely clear about
why this Bill did not pass into
law. It is because the Bill was
unnecessary, shoddy, ill-conceived
and above all, draconian in its
intended application against all
police officers in this state.
It is why your Association
actively lobbied against it with
unprecedented vigour. It is why every
non-ALP politician in the Victorian
Parliament voted against it. It is
why it was ultimately defeated.
As we have argued repeatedly,
there were no redeeming features
to this Bill. It was all bad.
For example, the Bill sought to
reverse the ‘onus of proof’ in all
discipline matters condemning
members as guilty until proving
themselves innocent. It sought to
introduce coercive questioning in
under-performance matters, while
providing the Chief Commissioner of
the day the ability to waive members’
probationary periods and to pay
‘gratuities’ (the Bill’s term, not ours)
to members of their choosing.
It’s hard to believe this is the same
Labor Government who vehemently
urged their federal colleagues
to oppose the former WorkChoices
legislation. The hypocrisy of the
politics of convenience has not
been missed by any observer.
The Government could not
mount a persuasive argument that
the Chief Commissioner requires
more powers than already exist,
in the Police Regulation Act 1958
(as amended), to remove members
who behave in a corrupt or criminal
way. He can now. The Association
has previously advised the Chief
Commissioner that we support the
full letter of the law being applied
to any member who behaves in
a criminal or criminally corrupt
way. We know that our members
do not want to work with crooks
and, while thankfully they are very
few in number, there is a need for
vigilance to ensure the standards
built over 156 years are maintained.
In using the extensive powers that
already exist, we believe that the
very few members who do commit
criminal or corrupt acts can be
dealt with effectively, for the
betterment of our members, the
Force, and the community.
We were ready and willing to
engage with the government on this
issue but they, regrettably, refused
to consult with your representatives.
The stance adopted by the
Government was in stark contrast to
the attitude of all non-Government
members of Parliament, including
the Liberal, National, Greens MPs
and the DLP member.
We sincerely thank them all for
hearing our significant concerns
on behalf of all our members. We
also congratulate them for seeing
right through the massive amount
of Government media spin in its
desperate attempt to get this Bill
across the line - including the reliance
on dubious statistics that have since
been proven to be plain wrong.
We now urge the Government
to focus its energies on what all
Victorians want and expect –
urgently and properly resourcing
our police force rather than trying
to further emasculate it.
Members’ online survey
I’d like to take this opportunity
to thank the many members
who made the time and effort
to complete our recent online survey
of Association members.
At the time of writing, all of the
data and feedback provided by
you all is currently in the process
of being independently collated
and analysed.
I reiterate my commitment to take
on board and act on your feedback
to ensure that members get the
best possible value from their
Association membership.
Variable rosters
The dispute involving variable
rosters has been long and arduous,
but we have seen this issue take a
positive turn in the last few weeks.
As we report inside on page
9, Warragul members, with the
support of The Police Association,
have managed to save their
variable roster after it was
threatened with termination.
Buoyed by this outcome, it is
The Police Association’s intention
– with the endorsement and
guidance of affected members –
to revisit this dispute on behalf
of all members who have recently
lost their variable hours rosters
against their wishes.
We remain hopeful that
with a spirit of cooperation
and conciliation between the
Association, Force Command and
affected stations, that a successful
outcome is still possible. For our
part, the Association will continue
to work hard to ensure this occurs.
www.tpav.org.au The Police Association Journal November 2009