Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003 - NSW ...

We raised the issue of regional stationing of drug detection dogs during the review of Police Powers (Drug Detection
Dogs) Act 2001. 395 At the time, the NSW Police Force indicated that it did not support the regionalisation of dogs,
citing prohibitive factors of cost; supervision; and the quality of training, accreditation and performance. 396
As noted above (at paragraph 4.2.4), police utilised a Customs dog during one drug detection operation. We also
note that the NSW Police Force currently has no agreements or memorandums of understandings regulating the
inter-agency use of drug detection dogs. 397
The practice of utilising drug detection dogs from other agencies does not appear uncommon. Police in the regions
advise that if they are unable to access a NSW Police Force drug detection dog, then they may request the use of
drug detection dogs from other agencies such as the Department of Corrective Services, the Australian Customs
Service, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, and other police forces. In these circumstances, police utilise
dogs which are not trained or accredited by the Dog Unit. Accordingly, we note that one of the central arguments
militating against the regional stationing of drug detection dogs in New South Wales, namely, the lack of control over
the training, accreditation and performance, appears to be occurring in any event given the use of non-NSW Police
Force trained and accredited personnel and dogs by police in regional areas.
We interviewed a senior officer at the Dog Unit who acknowledged that NSW Police Force officers in the regions
occasionally utilise drug detection dogs from other agencies when the Dog Unit — located in Sydney — is unable to
meet requests for assistance. The officer stated that there were few concerns with the practice given the majority of
the agencies had standardised competency based training programs in place for their dogs. The officer also noted
that the NSW Police Force regularly participated in across-agency investigations and thus the issue of using drug
detection dogs from other law enforcement agencies was of little concern.
The officer noted that police in both Queensland and New Zealand have dogs stationed in regional areas. However,
the officer also outlined a number of questions — many with significant financial implications — that need to be
considered when assessing whether to de-centralise where dogs are stationed:
• Who will be responsible for the technical training of dogs including access to prohibited drugs for training? 398
• Who will be responsible for the day-to-day supervision and management of handlers?
• Who will oversee the staff development of handlers?
• Who decides and prioritises the efficient deployment of the dog and handler?
• Who looks after the dog when the handler is sick, injured or on leave?
• Who co-ordinates the veterinary care of the dog including regular worming and other vaccinations?
• Who conducts yard inspections to ensure compliance with minimum requirements for the safe home
kennelling of dogs?
We asked the officer about the possibility of rotating handlers and dogs in the regions for short periods of time (3
months). The officer opined that ‘anything is worth a look’ but noted that there would be challenges in implementing
such a scheme equitably. The officer expressed a preference for placing officers in the regions permanently rather
than on a rotational basis.
The officer also reiterated some of the concerns outlined above and suggested that ‘simple things such as the
day to day management of [handlers] and the care that they give their dogs is challenging’. In addition, the officer
suggested that there would be significant costs associated with rotating handlers and dogs, noting industrial issues
such as awards and entitlements associated with being away from home; where the dog and handler would be
accommodated; and which organisation unit would pay for it all.
Clearly the issue of regionalisation of drug detection dogs is complex and involves a number of issues that are
not amenable to simple solution. In our view, these complexities, of themselves, do not preclude the NSW Police
Force from exploring and/or trialling schemes aimed at increasing the availability of drug detection dogs in the
regions. We note that the NSW Police Force is currently exploring options to increase the availability of dogs in
the non-metropolitan police regions.
5.6. Cost and resource effectiveness
When conducting any activity targeting crime, the community expects police to use resources in a cost effective
manner. A number of senior officers we spoke to and interviewed suggested that drug detection operations are not
cost or resource effective. One senior officer stated:
I’m not happy with the cost involved. There was a lot of money and a lot of effort put in by this region … it was
very resource intensive. 399
70
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003