This speech was delivered on 12/09/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the original contribution here.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.40 p.m.]: In the recent budget estimates hearing I asked both the Attorney General and the Chief Executive Officer of Juvenile Justice, Ms Valda Rusis, several questions about the rate of juvenile imprisonment in New South Wales. The series of facts and figures that came out are greatly troubling. One of the most stark problems is the rate at which New South Wales continues to jail our juveniles. On the day I asked the chief executive officer about the number of juveniles in detention that night in New South Wales jails there were 302. That is roughly four to five times the rate that children are jailed across the border in Victoria. When one digs deeper into the figures they become even more troubling in terms of the make-up of the juvenile justice population and the children in juvenile detention who are being held on remand.

First, I refer to the proportion of Aboriginal juveniles held in detention. As long as records go back, there has been an appalling overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in juvenile detention facilities. The figures from 2008-09 to this year show that the rate of Aboriginal children in juvenile prisons remains between 49 per cent and 51 per cent of the juvenile prison population. From an overall population base of about 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent of the population, they represent half—sometimes slightly more than half—of the children in jail on any particular night. That is a gross failing by the criminal justice system of this vulnerable part of our community, which fails on so many other grounds including health and life expectancy.

If we look even further into the figures we realise that 49 per cent of the juveniles being held in detention at any given moment are not being held because they have been found guilty of an offence; they are being held on remand. Primarily they are being held on remand because the authorities, the Children’s Magistrate or the magistrate they come before, cannot be satisfied that if they are given bail they will be found some safe and secure accommodation from which they will be able to report to court. It is extraordinary that, of the 50 per cent or 49 per cent of the juvenile justice prison population that are being held on remand, a remarkable 82.8 per cent of those juveniles either get a non-custodial sentence or are acquitted when they come to trial. Nine times out of 10 those juveniles should not have spent one night behind bars, let alone often months waiting for their trial.

When we look at the number of Aboriginal children who are being processed through the juvenile justice system, and we look more deeply at the orders and the proportion of Aboriginal children receiving different custodial orders or sentencing outcomes in the Children’s Court, the trend is even more worrying. When a child comes before the Children’s Court for sentencing, an array of options is open to the magistrate. The three principal orders are: a child can be ordered to attend a youth justice conference, where the child is encouraged to take responsibility for his or her offence and sometimes to meet with the victims of the offence, which is a non-custodial path; sometimes they can attend orders under community supervision; or they can go to jail.

When we look at the proportion of Aboriginal children who are ordered into the lesser youth justice conference stream we see that 27 per cent of the children going down the youth justice conference stream are Aboriginal; 42.4 per cent of children going down the community supervision path are Aboriginal; and 50 per cent of the children going to jail are Aboriginal. Aboriginal youth are grossly overrepresented in jail and disproportionately underrepresented in those other classes of sentencing. There is a systemic failing in the way we deal with juvenile justice, particularly for Aboriginal children. The department has accepted that those figures will continue. We need a new path and a new pattern.

This speech was delivered on 17/09/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the House on the recently announced review of police handling of critical incidents, including when it will commence? Will the report be available publicly and will there be a call for public submissions?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Of course critical incidents are matters that come under the responsibility of the Premier of New South Wales. He has made an announcement today in this regard. I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is a great announcement.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is a great announcement, and I am sure that all fair-minded people will be very much behind the need for this inquiry. I will leave it to the Premier to go into the details.

This speech was delivered on 15/10/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.21 p.m.]: The Greens support substantial elements of the Firearms and Criminal Groups Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. However, we have some significant concerns about the lack of checks and balances, which I will address now and during the Committee stage. The object of the bill is to:

(a) … empower police officers without warrant to enter premises or a vehicle occupied by a person who is subject to a firearms prohibition order, and to conduct searches for firearms, firearm parts and ammunition, for the purposes of determining whether the person is complying with the order …

That power is codified in proposed section 74A, which provides:
Powers of police to search for firearms in possession of person subject to firearms prohibition order

(1) The powers of a police officer under this section may be exercised as reasonably required for the purposes of determining whether a person who is subject to a firearms prohibition order has committed an offence under section 74 (1), (2) or (3).

The key search power is provided in proposed new subsection (2), which states:

(2) A police officer may:

(a) detain a person who is subject to a firearms prohibition order, or

(b) enter any premises occupied by or under the control or management of such a person, or

(c) stop and detain any vehicle, vessel or aircraft occupied by or under the control or management of such a person, and conduct a search of the person, or of the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, for any firearms, firearm parts or ammunition.

Proposed subsection (3) provides:

In this section, premises includes any place, whether built on or not.

This is the key power in this legislation; in effect, it provides police officers with the power to conduct random searches of people who are the subject of a firearms prohibition order. It is therefore not a power that can be exercised at large; it can be exercised only with regard to persons who have been issued with a firearms prohibition order by the Commissioner of Police. The very real concern is that this legislation gives police officers a warrantless search power. There is an argument that police officers should be able to conduct random searches of persons who are the subject of a firearms prohibition order to ensure that they do not have a firearm in their possession, that they are not attending a gun club, that they do not have ammunition in their possession, and that they are not staying at a premises at which someone has a firearm or ammunition.Indeed, The Greens support the extended scope of firearms orders as proposed in this legislation to the extent that it extends the effect of an order. However, we are extremely concerned that these powers are being provided without any checks and balances. As it stands, a person who has been the subject of a series of random searches at their workplace, their home or while driving a car cannot request a review of the exercise of those powers. The Greens are proposing an important and essential amendment that would allow such persons to lodge an application with the Local Court to declare a search to have been unlawful on the basis that it was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or otherwise an abuse of power.It also proposes to allow such persons to seek remedies, including an order about the inadmissibility of the evidence gained and a form of modest relief if the police have been found to have conducted one or a series of searches that were found to be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or otherwise an abuse of power. An order could then be issued that the police are not entitled to conduct a further search under proposed section 74A for a period not exceeding three months. Of course, that would not prevent the police, if they had criminal intelligence, from obtaining a search warrant. The amendment will provide an important check on what would otherwise be a warrantless search power. I say that in the context of the understanding that, provided there are sufficient checks and balances, it is not entirely inappropriate for the police to have the ability to conduct random searches of people who are the subject of a firearms prohibition order.In addition to the existing prohibition on possessing or using a firearm, the bill proposes to prohibit a person who is the subject of a firearms prohibition order from acquiring or possessing firearm parts or ammunition, from residing at premises where there are firearms, and from attending certain other places such as gun shops and shooting ranges. The Greens support that aspect of the bill. People are the subject of firearms prohibition orders for a variety of reasons. Briefings provided by the Government indicated that a number of people have been the subject of a firearms prohibition order because they have been involved in domestic violence or have significant mental health issues, which means that they would be a substantial threat to people known to them or to the community at large if they were allowed to get their hands on a firearm.The police also want to be able to issue orders against people who they have good reason to believe are members of organised criminal groups and thereby have access to firearms. It is important in those circumstances that the police have the capacity to check whether the order is being observed. Indeed, it is only rational that those who are the subject of firearms prohibition orders not only be prevented from owning a firearm but also that that prohibition include acquiring or possessing firearm parts or ammunition, going to gun shops and shooting ranges, or residing with people who own firearms. The Greens support that aspect of the legislation.

The bill also proposes to modify the existing offences relating to the sale and purchase of firearms, firearms parts and ammunition so that they apply instead to the supply or the transfer of ownership, by sale, gift or otherwise, and acquisition—that is, accepting or receiving those things. The broadening of those offences is consistent with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. The bill also includes a new offence of giving possession, which includes lending a firearm or firearm part to a person who is not authorised to possess it. I am surprised that that is not already an offence and The Greens support that provision. It also provides that any person who attempts to commit an offence under the principal Act is liable to the penalty for that offence. Again, that is a necessary clarification of the existing law, and particularly the Firearms Act.

The bill amends the Restricted Premises Act 1943 to increase penalties under that Act for offences relating to reputed criminals attending premises declared by the Supreme Court or District Court under that Act, and to empower police officers without warrant to enter such premises and conduct searches for firearms. That updates the penalties in an Act that has been on the statute books for 70 years. The updating of the penalties, which is all that part of the amending bill relates to, appears to be consistent with penalties for similar offences in other parts of the New South Wales statutes.There has been some vociferous opposition to this legislation from what I would call the firearms lobby. That lobby group has attacked the Government’s moves on the basis that they infringe people’s rights to have firearms, people’s rights to have a firearms licence and to be free from police oversight if they have a firearms licence. That is an analysis that The Greens comprehensively reject. There is no right to have a firearm in New South Wales under New South Wales statute law. There is no right to bear arms in this State. In fact, there is no right to bear arms in any of Australia’s States or Territories. The attempt by the firearms lobby to convince the Australian people they ought to have a right to bear arms—a right that has led the United States down a deeply troubling and violence-filled path—needs to be rejected by all political parties in this Chamber.

The Greens reject the argument that a curtailment of people’s rights as firearms owners is somehow a fundamental curtailment of their civil rights. It is not. However, the one aspect of this bill that greatly troubles The Greens is the lack of oversight and the lack of review of those warrantless searches by the New South Wales police. It is a matter about which we have been involved in some dialogue with the Government over previous days. I hope that the Government and other members will support The Greens amendment to give reasonable oversight of warrantless searches in this bill. I will save the balance of my contribution in relation to the warrantless searches aspect of the bill until the Committee consideration.

This speech was delivered on 15/10/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the original contribution online here.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Why did neither the Minister nor his office commence an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in the NSW State Emergency Service after being advised of them in October 2012 by the then Deputy Commissioner of Corporate Services and Planning?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As has been reported in the media, this matter may or may not be a matter that is currently subject to an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Therefore I will be making no comment in relation to it.

This speech was delivered on 15/10/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.59 p.m.]: I appreciate the Government’s detailed response to the amendments. I will make a few observations. First, there is only a very limited ability in any party to challenge evidence when it comes before a court in a trial. There would be a far more limited capacity to challenge evidence under one of the discretionary provisions in the Evidence Act once the matter came before the court for trial and it would put in place substantial uncertainty about the prosecution’s case until such time as those matters are determined at trial, potentially after spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money in pulling together a prosecution brief, commencing legal proceedings and getting them before the District Court or the Supreme Court.

It would be far better to make those determinations earlier through this prompt procedure that The Greens are proposing in relation to challenging the lawfulness or otherwise of these powers. Far from the Government’s concerns that this regime would cause difficulties in prosecutions, this regime would likely have a substantial benefit in that those kinds of decisions would be made well in advance of a trial and before countless thousands of dollars of public money is spent on pulling together a brief that ultimately may have a fundamental flaw in that the evidence obtained falls foul of the very kinds of considerations that The Greens say should be looked at in this early and summary fashion in the Local Court.

Secondly, absent this kind of express statutory power to review, the real concern is that instead of going through this summary and effective process, cashed-up members of drug cartels and cashed-up members of bikie gangs will embark on expensive Supreme Court proceedings to challenge the question of whether the search has been reasonable, as set out in proposed section 74A, which states that the powers of a police officer can only be exercised as reasonably required. Any well-informed, cashed-up criminal who is concerned about the exercise of those search powers would, absent The Greens arrangement—a summary, effective, quick, focused review in the Local Court—take these matters for a declaration in the Supreme Court, which will be vastly more expensive and vastly more uncertain under the Supreme Court’s general declaratory powers. I believe that is a much more troublesome approach for the prompt review of these kinds of administrative powers.

I genuinely do not think the Government has seriously thought through how this will work in practice. The Greens have and we have considered the most effective way of having these issues determined in a manner over which the Parliament has some control, and that is that the Parliament puts in place the criteria, puts in place the time frames and puts in place a quick, summary process to have those issues determined. The Greens have done that in our amendment by proposing that these powers be reviewed by the Local Court. The Government thinks that by not supporting the amendment that somehow it will avoid legal scrutiny. Far from it: The Government will find that lengthy and expensive declaratory proceedings will be brought in the Supreme Court about whether or not the exercise of the powers by the police under section 74A are reasonable.

The very arguments that we say should be determined quickly and cheaply in the Local Court within three months of the powers being exercised instead will be tied up for months or years—going to the Supreme Court, an appeal to the Court of Appeal and questions being tested by special leave in the High Court. That is not a sensible approach. The Parliament is far better off putting in place some well thought out checks and balances, some clear statutory powers and a clear regime to oversight these powers where it can structure the terms in which the oversight is carried out. The Greens have put forward this model because we think it greatly improves the Government’s bill and it supports civil liberties. But absent this we will have cashed-up drug criminals taking the matter up in a much more unfocused set of challenges in the Supreme Court. That is not in anyone’s interest.

Further, people who may not be cashed up, people who do not have large amounts of money, the kind of ordinary people who may be caught up in this regime who want to challenge the exercise of the police powers, will not have available to them a quick, effective, summary process in the Local Court. Someone who thinks they have been unfairly dealt with because their mental illness is under control and they should not be the subject of a prohibited weapons order and they should not be the subject of these searches should have access to a quick, effective, summary procedure in the Local Court and should not be forced to take expensive proceedings in the Supreme Court.

This amendment is not intended to defeat the purpose of the legislation; it is intended to put in place some sensible checks and balances that protect civil liberties in a way that will allow these issues to be resolved quickly, effectively and fairly. For that reason we did not support these review powers being exercised by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal—not because we do not believe the members of that tribunal are good; there are some excellent members of that tribunal—but the rules and procedure in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal mean that cases get bogged down for months and months, if not years, in the tribunal and take forever to get an initial ruling.

It can then take months and months or years to get an appeal review in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. That is why The Greens support a new administrative regime with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, hopefully starting early next year. But until we see the way it operates we do not support having these kinds of reviews carried out in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. We do not think that would be effective, fair or timely. We urge members to consider these amendments seriously. We urge the Government to rethink its position, which I think has come more from a knee-jerk response from the Ministry than a fair and objective review of The Greens amendments.

In May this year, SES Deputy Commissioner, Tara McCarthy, was given an hour to get her things into boxes and get out of the office. She had been sacked.

Why the Deputy Commissioner was removed from her job in the State Emergency Service is now the subject of an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). That’s because she is a whistleblower. The Deputy Commissioner had made a series of corruption allegations whilst employed by the SES.

Whether McCarthy was sacked as a result of her attempts to shine a light on alleged corruption within the organisation that appointed her as the first female deputy commissioner in its 60-year history will now be independently investigated.

The Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, has been asked repeatedly by journalists about whether he or members of his staff have been called to give evidence by ICAC.  The Minister has dodged the questions every time, refusing to confirm or deny that he or any of his staff have been asked to appear.

Whistleblowers have only limited protections under the law in NSW. This stands in contrast with Victoria, which has stronger  laws and policies to protect  whistleblowers.

If the Deputy Commissioner was sacked as a direct result of speaking out about possible corruption within one of the state’s biggest volunteer organisation, then ICAC has the capacity to recommend prosecution.

That is all well and good, but the case raises questions about the need for tougher laws that specifically protect employees who speak out about abuses or corruption within the organisation that employs them.

With the DPP now stating there is sufficient evidence to charge four police with assault relating to the death of Roberto Laudisio Curti, the Police Commissioner must immediately act to protect public confidence in the police and suspend those officers from duty until the conclusion of any legal process.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said:

“These officers are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but the public are also entitled to have confidence in serving police, and this requires the Commissioner to act and suspend the officers immediately.

“The conclusion of the DPP adds to the damning findings from both the Coroner and the Police Integrity Commission about the violence of police on the night of Mr Curti’s death.

“If these findings had been made about any other public servant, whether a nurse or a teacher, there is no question that they would have been suspended from duty pending the final determination of the Courts.

“Why are police, who have so much discretionary power, not subject to the same scrutiny?”

“The presumption of innocence is essential in any criminal trial these officers may face, but until there is a final decision by the courts common sense dictates that these officers should not be active duty,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Media contact: 9230 3030

Roberto Laudisio Curti’s family in Brazil, Italy and the United States have also put out a statement regarding the DPP’s recommendation:

On behalf of the Brazilian family in Brazil, in Italy and in the United States I come to declare our thoughts regarding the positions of the DPP office regarding Roberto Laudisio case.

We believe that the position of the DPP office is a very important step ahead in order to bring justice. However there are many other issues still to be addressed.

Mr. Bruce Barbour, the NSW Parliament ombudsman for this case strongly criticized the police investigation in this case for not investigating the crimes committed by police officers that resulted in Roberto’s death. He is absolutely right since there are very strong evidences that at least four of the officers tortured Roberto according to their own statements during the coronial inquest. They declared that they tasered Roberto on drivestun mode at least eight times, up to fifteen seconds each time, and used three cans of capsicum spray on an extremely short distance as a “pain compliance technique”. If such “a pain compliance technique” is allowed (or encouraged) in training or SOP’s, as they claimed, it is even a much worse issue since it can be unquestionably characterized as torture, as defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Article 1.1, which is largely adopted by adopted into Australian legislation, as described in the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995.

Moreover a more in-depth investigation is more than needed regarding manslaughter. As stated in the coroner’s report — Although she has not identified a specific cause of death, she concludes that Roberto’s death was unquestionably caused by police action. We do not know Australian legislation regarding manslaughter but evidences are quite strong and deserve more in-depth investigation.

Sunlight is the best sanitary agent invented and the NSW Parliament and legal institutions should try hard to bring all police brutality and abuse to sunlight.

Domingos A Laudisio

Police suffering from post-traumatic stress claim the insurance company dealing with their cases are spying on them.

For some, the tragedy eats away at them until it’s all too much, and the result is the debilitating psychiatric condition, post-traumatic stress disorder.

New South Wales police are required to pay an insurance premium to cover them in case they end up unable to work.

But last year their insurer lost the state’s police contract and now its disputing old claims, dragging them on for years.

Cops who once acted on stake-outs are being watched themselves with months of constant video surveillance.

Their psychiatrists are begging the insurance company to quit a practice they claim is exacerbating trauma.

Louise Milligan reports.

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: For months on end, Peter Klein has been watched, spied on, followed. The former police sergeant has been subjected to endless hours of video surveillance by the insurance company MetLife, who is assessing his claim for post-traumatic stress disorder.

PETER KLEIN, FMR NSW POLICE SERGEANT: It’s massively intimidating. They’ve been up my driveway. They have sat our there – there’s footage of me at my letter box. It’s very ominous-looking. So to have some (inaudible) and surveillance video induces a massive amount of guilt and trepidation in me, like, is there something wrong with me? Why am I still being watched? Why is this still going on? To me, surveillance means you’re up to no good.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Peter Klein started in policing in 1994. Moving to NSW in 1998, his mental health went downhill after daily exposure to death and tragedy. But what’s happened since has compounded his pain. To escape the constant scrutiny of surveillance, he’s made his home a fortress. It’s not lost on him that as a cop he used to watch crims do this very same thing.

PETER KLEIN: Made me feel like perhaps I’m losing my mind. I’m sticking tin foil up in my own home, trying to stop people I don’t know looking through my window.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Peter Klein’s favourite job was working in the force’s Air Wing division, where he conducted dramatic rescues hanging from a helicopter winch.

He even worked part-time jobs to supplement his income.

These days, he rarely leaves the house for anything bar doctor’s appointments. Each day, he swallows a cocktail of psychiatric medication.

PETER KLEIN: I’ve woken up with my head split open on the floor. I don’t recall what from. A lot of the nights I do get sleep I’ve got to change the sheets the next day. Don’t remember it all the time.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: For the 18 months since he put in his insurance claim, he’s been paid under $400 a week by the insurance company.

PETER KLEIN: 41 years of age, having your friends and family pay for simple things like food after you’ve worked two or three jobs, never took a day off that you didn’t really need, did everything to build your life, and the last two years, boom, I’ve lost my job, my career, my marriage.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Part of the reason it’s gone lies here. The Gap is the dramatic cliff face off Sydney’s Watsons Bay where Peter Klein spent many grisly hours.

PETER KLEIN: A lot of your job predominantly was picking up people’s shattered remains that had committed suicide off The Gap. I’ve had to chase crows that have picked up a bit of skull and ear from the shattered remains of a suicide victim, wondered whether or not I’d get in more trouble for trying to get the ear back for the coroner or discharging my firearm towards a crow out toward the headland. … I just got to a point where enough human tragedy obviously was enough for me.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Peter Klein’s psychiatrist has recommended he go to the cliff as part of his recovery. This is the first time he’s been back and it’s enormously difficult, so he doesn’t stay long.

HUGH MORGAN, PSYCHIATRIST: I can understand that an insurance company would want to make sure that a claim is valid. But I think that the surveillance that has been occurring with my patient has just been relentless and it has gone on and on and on and I can only see that, really, this is like harassment. And of course what this has done is made Peter completely kind of overwhelmed, fearful, frightened about actually getting out and doing the things that would help in his recovery.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: What do you think they want to happen?

PETER KLEIN: Simply they want me to give up.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Former senior constable Andy Peverill knows all about surveillance too. For six months this year he’s been endlessly watched outside his Parkes property by video surveillance operatives. Here, Andy’s wife Michelle Peverill is showing us one of the nine DVDs of surveillance they’ve obtained from MetLife. Investigators film the couple every time they leave the house.

MICHELLE PEVERILL: He has to come with me; he can’t be on his own. The last time I left him on his own, he cut half of his hair off ’cause he got extremely anxious. And then another time I left him on his own, he started a grass fire without supervision.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Andy Peverill worked for 10 years alt the Parkes police station on general duties.

ANDY PEVERILL, FMR NSW POLICE SENIOR CONSTABLE: When I signed up, I never signed up to get PTSD. I signed up to make a difference, to do a good job and hopefully help people in their lives.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Andy Peverill’s duties included having to count limbs in traffic accidents, trying, and failing, to rescue teenagers from a burning car, giving CPR to a friend’s brother who had hanged himself and who then died in his arms. One day, he just couldn’t go to work anymore.

MICHELLE PEVERILL: And on that last morning, I think he just stepped out of his brain, just something triggered him with his uniform and he just lost the plot. And I said, “What’s the matter?” And he said, “I’m not doing it anymore. I can’t do it. Don’t make me do!”

LOUISE MILLIGAN: What do you tell people about it, what it’s like?

ANDY PEVERILL: The simplest way is to just tell people that I see dead people. And the people I see, I knew they were living and – but they won’t leave, they won’t go away. They just keep coming back. And, yeah, they’re back now.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Andy Peverill’s desperation reached a limit one day when his wife found him in the shed.

MICHELLE PEVERILL: And I said, “What are you doing?,” ’cause he was just standing there aimlessly. He said, “I was just thinking whether or not I would hang myself or I’d connect a hosepipe up to the car.”

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Andy Peverill and Peter Klein are just two of a group of former police who call themselves the Forgotten 300. They say their claims have been delayed by successive insurers of the NSW force.

KAROL BLACKLEY, FMR NSW POLICE OFFICER: The police department failed to support us and now they’ve thrown us over the fence to an insurance company who doesn’t care.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: This week, the officers invited 7.30 to film a minute’s silence for colleagues who have taken their lives. NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge represented many injured police in his former life as a barrister.

DAVID SHOEBRIDGE, NSW GREENS MP: Even the most legitimate claim, they will take on appeal to the Court of Appeal, on appeal to the High Court to avoid making a fair payment to injured police.

PETER KLEIN: Until I can get some sort of traction, some sort of closure, some sort of answer, then I can start to deal with what keeps me awake most nights.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: In spite of numerous approaches by 7.30, neither the Police Commissioner nor the insurer would appear on our program. In a statement, police expressed disappointment with MetLife’s delays. MetLife’s statement defends surveillance as industry standard.

Andy Peverill’s wife. Michelle, thinks she’ll need to close her free-range egg farm to look after her husband full-time. She’s already dipping into her super and the couple risks losing their home if MetLife doesn’t pay up.

As for Andy, he’s just trying to get through the day. He often just goes out to stand among the chooks.

ANDY PEVERILL: They only seem to have two cares. One is getting feed and the other one’s getting water. Well, I’m very envious of that, because that’s – I don’t think I’ve a couple things to care about.

LEIGH SALES: Louise Milligan reporting. You can see the full statements from the New South Wales Police and MetLife on our website.

This story originally aired on the 7.30 report, on December 19 2013.

Injured police have received only a tiny fraction of an annual $100 million that the O’Farrell government has wasted on a privatised death and disability insurance scheme they established in 2011.  See the report in the SMH here.

The analysis of the failed police insurance scheme comes from figures released by the NSW auditor general.  In the 2012/2013 financial year the NSW government paid the insurer TAL $99.9 million for insurance for injured police, but the insurer paid out only a total of $133,471 in actual claims.

The average payment to injured police fell from approximately $480,000 under the old scheme to just $19,067 under the new scheme.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson, David Shoebridge said:

“This is a comprehensive policy failure by the O’Farrell government and it is injured police who are paying the highest cost.

“This $100 million insurance premium should have gone to assist injured police, instead 99.8% of the payments has lined the pockets of just one insurer.

“The government’s ideological drive to privatise the police death and disability scheme at any cost has seen taxpayers and police lose out while the insurance industry is once again laughing all the way to the bank.

“The Police Minister must be held accountable for a scheme that has seen $100 million in taxpayer funds essential flushed down the toilet.

“Instead of putting such a vast amount of money into a failed insurance policy the government should have put that money aside for genuine assistance to injured police.

“Instead the government appears to have learned nothing from the 2012/13 disaster and has bungled ahead this year and purchased exactly the same failed policy for the same inflated price.

“Injured police have every right to feel betrayed by this government that on one hand keeps talking up their role, but with the other cuts their benefits and wastes the scarce funds put aside to protect them.

“Injured police, just like all other injured workers in NSW, have become politically expendable for this government who’s only focus is on limiting overall payments, regardless of the final impact on those who need assistance,” Mr Shoebridge said.

See further reporting on a recent deeply disturbing NSW high speed police chase initiated after an illegal u-turn and ending with police crashing into a bus stop outside a child care centre.

The figures obtained by the Greens also show that in the last two years 8 people have died as a result of NSW police pursuits, and 78 have been injured, 14 of who were innocent bystanders.

NSW Greens MP and Spokesperson for Police David Shoebridge said:

“NSW has far and away the most police chases of any state in Australia, and the risks and dangers they create for police, offenders and innocent bystanders are not being properly considered.

“This recent case is a clear illustration of a dangerous and failed policy with NSW police escalating a minor traffic offence of an illegal u-turn into a dangerous high-speed chase that ends with police crashing into a bus stop outside a child care centre.

“Across the world, and across Australia, police forces are winding back on dangerous chases for minor offences and NSW is stubbornly bucking that trend.

“It is deeply disturbing that the majority of NSW police car chases result from what are often minor traffic infringements that then escalate into a serious and life-threatening police pursuit.

“The NSW Police Minister needs to take a good hard look at these figures and explain why NSW police are escalating traffic offences to high speed chases and increasing the risk of serious injury or death to the drivers, passengers, police and innocent bystanders.

“A police pursuit should only be undertaken on the basis of the seriousness of the initial alleged offence, rather than on subsequent traffic violations.

“NSW police are hitting high speeds of up to 187km/h chasing offenders, and this kind of dangerous pursuit should be limited to chasing more serious criminals.

“If a person fails to stop at an RBT then there is good reason to believe they are not sober, so to escalate this to a high speed chase is clearly dangerous.

“With in-car police cameras, polair and comprehensive on-line databases, nine times out of ten traffic offenders, or people who fail to stop at an RBT, can be far more safely and easily arrested by police when they return home than through a high speed chase.

“Instead of a dangerous chase, most times police should be throwing the book at these drivers when they get home.

“NSW can learn a lot from jurisdictions in the US as well as Queensland and Tasmania where police chases are only undertaken to chase serious offenders and not to dangerously pursue someone doing an illegal u-turn.” Mr Shoebridge said.

Another dangerous NSW police pursuit has ended with innocent third parties in hospital and many lives put at risk and there is still no clear reason given by police about why they engaged in the pursuit in the first place.  NSW police engage in far and away the most dangerous police pursuits of any police force in Australia and in the vast majority of cases what triggers the pursuit is a traffic offence.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“NSW has far and away the most police chases of any state in Australia, and the risks and dangers they create for police, offenders and innocent bystanders are not being properly considered.

“Initial reports suggest that this most recent chase has injured more than 6 people, a number of them seriously, and there is no clear reason given by police about why the chase started in the first place.

“NSW police owe the community a full and frank public explanation for why this dangerous car chase started in the first place.

“Figures obtain from police by the Greens show that the majority of NSW police car chases result from what are often minor traffic infringements that then escalate into serious and life-threatening police pursuits.

“Other police forces around the world are winding back on dangerous chases for minor offences and NSW is stubbornly bucking that trend.

“The NSW Police Minister needs to explain why NSW police are ignoring the best evidence and escalating often minor offences into deadly high speed chases.

“A police pursuit should only be undertaken on the basis of the seriousness of the initial alleged offence, rather than on subsequent traffic violations.

“Clearly there are cases where pursuits are needed to catch a serious criminal or a person fleeing the scene of a violent crime, but this isn’t the case for the majority of police chases in NSW.

“With the technology available to modern police such as in-car police cameras, polair and comprehensive on-line databases, nine times out of ten non-violent offenders can be far more safely and easily arrested by police when they return home than through a high speed chase.

“NSW needs to learn from jurisdictions in the US as well as Queensland and Tasmania where police chases are only undertaken to chase serious offenders,” Mr Shoebridge said.

This week’s Background Briefing on ABC Radio National covers the issue of post-traumatic stress and police suicides.

My office has heard from many current and former police officers who have been shunned, isolated and left without meaningful assistance after suffering psychological injuries at work.

Before I came to Parliament I acted for a number of police in similar situations and saw first-hand how badly they were treated by the force and insurers.

Having heard first hand how police and their families are suffering I can’t turn a blind eye on this issue.

I would urge you to take the time to listen to the report on ABC and then see if you also think it is time to break the silence.

ABC Radio National Background Briefing: Death In The Line Of Duty by David Shoebridge Greens

Too often, traumatised police officers are shunned, isolated and put under surveillance. They lose their careers, friendships and often their homes, marriages and children, and a growing number are taking their own lives. William Verity investigates the silence around police, post traumatic stress and suicide.

For decades, silence has surrounded the issue of traumatised police officers taking their own lives.

Police forces and unions have viewed public discussion as taboo, arguing that raising the issue will only encourage more suicides.

But the final words of a suicidal former NSW detective sergeant look set to change that.

Ashley Bryant left behind a wife and three young children when he killed himself at a waterfall near Bryon Bay in NSW on 16 December 2013.

Before he died, he called 000.

‘I suffer post traumatic stress disorder,’ he said.

‘I can no longer live with the trauma of it and I want this to go to the coroner.’

‘There needs to be more things put in place for what happens. For partners of those that suffer, because I suffer and so do the partners.’

‘And there has to be more done for them. Alright, I have no more to say.’

His widow, Deborah Bryant, is taking up the campaign and has launched a scathing attack on the lack of support provided by the NSW Police Force.

‘I don’t think we were even a glitch on their radar,’ she told Background Briefing.

As a first step, she is calling for police who commit suicide with post traumatic stress to be included at remembrance days and included on the honour board. Suicides are specifically excluded from the National Police Memorial in Canberra.

She believes that nothing short of a change of culture is necessary to prevent further deaths.

‘These people have given their life for their career, and they have gotten to the point where they are broken and they should be recognised for that,’ she said.

‘As far as I am concerned, that’s death in the line of duty.’

The lack of recognition hit home last year for another widow, Kimberley Galvin, whose husband, Tom Galvin, killed himself after living with chronic post traumatic stress for six years.

She said Police Remembrance Day was one of the hardest times of her life.

‘It came in the same year as an officer killed on duty,’ she said.

‘With all due respect, it was like no-one else had died that year.’

‘It was very difficult for me to comes to terms with … your husband goes to work and he doesn’t come back, as opposed to your husband suffering and suffering and suffering and ends his life.’

‘That those two things are acknowledged in such different ways. Or one is acknowledged extensively and one is not acknowledged at all.’

Although the order of service listed many police who had died from a variety of causes—including old age and ill health—Tom Galvin’s name was conspicuous by its absence.

The story of isolation is repeated by thousands of police officers across Australia who become too sick to work.

Karol Blackley was dux of her class when she graduated and enjoyed a distinguished 22-year career in the NSW Police Force before—in police jargon—’falling off the perch’.

‘They didn’t care about me at all, not one iota,’ she said.

‘It was astounding, disappointing, hurtful, gut-wrenching. Here I am, with what could be a permanent psychological debilitation and they couldn’t give two hoots.’

At her lowest point, Blackley tried to hang herself and then drove to a local hotel, drank as much as she could stomach, and then drove her car in the hope that she would crash and die.

‘The minute you put up your hand and say, listen I am just not coping, I am ill and I can’t sleep and I’m crying uncontrollably in the corner of the office, and you can’t type because your fingers won’t send the message from your brain … that’s career suicide,’ she said.

‘So people hang on and they hang on until they commit actual suicide.’

Blackley runs one of several Facebook support sites set up by former officers—there is no site run by NSW Police—and says isolation can be one of the most damaging effects of post traumatic stress disorder.

‘No-one from the police department contacts you when you are off sick,’ she said.

‘No-one contacts you when you are medically discharged and certainly no-one contacts you when you are not in the police [force] anymore.’

The experience of these officers is in stark contrast to the message from Assistant Commissioner Carlene York, head of human resources at the NSW Police Force.

‘Whilst they are with us we have many intervention programs that we will go through with the officers to make sure those services are given to them urgently and immediately,’ York said.

‘They are very much supported in the workplace by their commanders and fellow officers.’

Although she declined to reveal suicide statistics, York maintained that indicators such as the number of officers leaving the force due to mental stress had improved dramatically in recent years.

‘We put a lot of services in place and we very much rally around the family in the regretful circumstance where there is a suicide,’ she said.

‘We make sure we can help them through those difficult times.’

One aspect of the treatment received by traumatised officers may soon face scrutiny thanks to NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge.

Next week, he will call for an inquiry into the treatment of sick officers seeking compensation from their insurance companies.

Shoebridge became aware of the issue when he represented injured police as a barrister, before entering parliament.

‘We need to ensure that those claims are handled promptly, fairly and independently,’ he said.

‘At the moment, there are many outstanding psychological injury claims that have been running for years. That aggravates the injury.’

The inquiry will look into the treatment of officers such as Andy Peverill, who has been fighting for compensation for three years with no end in sight.

The former constable sits in his farm outside Parkes, in western NSW, with the blinds drawn for fear of surveillance by his insurance company, MetLife.

The company has already made him see 10 psychologists—they all confirm that he has post traumatic stress disorder—but no decision is on the horizon.

Peverill’s wife, Michele, believes it is a tactic to grind them down and told Background Briefing that more than half of the officers who put in a claim end up giving up.

Like other officers, they say they have received no support from NSW Police or from former colleagues.

‘When I ask Andy he says he thinks they are frightened of catching it,’ Michele Peverill said.

‘Almost like it is contagious. I don’t know if there are any undermining things where senior officers say you mustn’t have a bar of him, I don’t know.’

‘They won’t even reply to my texts if I text them, so I don’t know.’

You can view the report in it’s original form on ABC Radio National here.

David introduced a Notice of Motion into the NSW Upper House on Tuesday seeking support for a Parliamentary Inquiry into how the NSW Police Force and insurers deal with serving and former NSW police who have suffered psychological injuries.

Four “missing” letters from Metgasco Ltd to Government Ministers have finally been released indicating what Greens MP David Shoebridge has long been speculating, that a high level of political interference took place during police protest operations at Glenugie last year.

Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson wrote to the then Minister for Resource and Energy, now ICAC embroiled, Chris Hartcher as well as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Brad Hazzard, Minister for Police and Emergency Services Michael Gallacher and the Attorney General Greg Smith requesting “greater legal reinforcement” for their operations.

Henderson also expressed concern about the “excessively lenient legal system” and its “unwillingness” to harshly penalise activists with “anti-development agendas.” Henderson’s suggestion to the Government in how to deal with protesters was to impose mandatory sentences.

The content in these letters now raises questions as to why the Government failed to hand over these documents following numerous GIPA requests lodged by David Shoebridge.

Both former Minister Hartcher and Police Minister Gallacher advised in a GIPA (FOI) Notice of Decision that no information or documents existed relating to these protests, and upon further GIPA requests only one of the letters was released.

Greens NSW MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“What we have now are documents being released that the Government bizarrely denied having any record of in the first place.

“These letters not only indicate a clear directive issued by the Metgasco’s CEO, but that the Government actually obeyed.

“The charges against these protesters were thrown out in court and we see now were only laid following direct political interference.

“It is simply unacceptable for resource industries to be effectively directing the operational activities of police in NSW.” Mr Shoebridge said.

View the letters as they were revealed by the Northern Star here.

The number of serving police in NSW with criminal records is rising and documents show NSW Police have not been upfront with the public about the recruitment of officers with form for serious crimes.

Watch the ABC 7.30 report below and view the full GIPA documents via the ABC report.

Read more from the Sydney Morning Herald below:

NSW Police recruited criminals who had notched up 414 convictions before they entered the force, including 40 cases of stealing, 20 cases of break, enter and steal, more than 100 drink-driving offences, plus fraud and dishonesty.Figures obtained under freedom of information laws reveal that 595 offences were committed by 437 police officers, or about one in 40 police still on active duty. Of those offences, 70 per cent were committed before they were employed as police officers.

“There are well over 100 high range PCAs, there are more high range PCA than low level PCA.”

The figures put pressure on Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, who has said that most convictions by serving officers were for low-range drink-driving and similar offences.

Former police officer Richard McDonald, who obtained the figures, said it was ‘‘just unfathomable you can let police in who have convictions for serious offences, including fraud, break and enter, drug offences and firearms’’.

He said the number of police with convictions had risen almost 250 per cent since 2008, although police numbers had only increased 6 per cent.

Of the 260 drink-driving offences recorded by police, including those by senior officers on the force and those committed pre-employment, 202 were medium or high range.

‘‘NSW Police has been recruiting criminals found guilty of serious offences,’’ Mr McDonald said. ‘‘That’s why the number of offences has gone up. This flies in the face of [Mr Scipione’s] claim that most are low-range drink-driving offences.’’

Mr Scipione has stood by his statement on Saturday that the majority of convictions ‘‘were for a low-range PCA [prescribed concentration of alcohol] or similar offence’’.

‘‘While I’m not happy about that [convictions by police officers], I don’t believe these warrant the end of a police career,’’ he said.

However, of the 260 drink-driving offences, only 58 were low range. Of those, 52 were committed before employment as police officers.

Of the 174 drink-driving offences recorded by officers before they were employed by the police, 118 were for medium or high range.

Of the 35 drink-driving offences by senior constables, 32 were in the medium or high range. Six serving sergeants committed high or medium drink-driving offences.

Other offences recorded by senior police include five cases of assault occasioning bodily harm, one case of common assault and several convictions for providing false information. Mr Scipione said the recruitment process, which had been strengthened in 2009, involved a range of checks.

On its website, the NSW Police Recruitment branch says it conducts a review of any criminal history information of any potential recruits.

Today’s Deputy Coroner’s report into the avoidable death of a young man on a motorcycle during a high speed police chase must lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of dangerous high speed police pursuits in NSW. The NSW police force has by far the most high speed pursuits of any police force in Australia and its lax pursuit rules are placing far too many lives at risk.

The coronial inquest today ruled that the motorcyclist’s death was avoidable and has recommended a full review of police pursuits, including a limit of two minutes on all high-speed police car chases unless there are compelling reasons.

Read the full findings from the Coronial Inquest into the death of Hamish Raj

The report confirms what this office has been saying for years: that the current level of police chases in NSW poses an unacceptable risk to the lives of police, offenders and innocent bystanders.

The Deputy Coroner is deeply critical of the high rate of police pursuits and in his core recommendation calls for pursuits to only be undertaken as a last resort in the most serious of circumstances:

“11. I recommend that, pending any review, urgent consideration be given to restricting high-speed pursuits to cases in which a serious offence (other than fail to stop as directed) is reasonably suspected of having been committed by the pursued driver or a person in the pursued vehicle AND (b) that person is unidentified OR there is no immediate prospect of locating him or her unless apprehended urgently. (For the purpose of this recommendation, consideration ought be given to defining “highspeed pursuit” as a pursuit in which a speed of 45kph or more over the prevailing speed limit is reached during the course of the pursuit by either the pursued vehicle or the police pursuit vehicle(s).)”

While there is no doubt that there are cases where pursuits are needed to catch a serious criminal or a person fleeing the scene of a violent crime, this is not the case for the majority of police chases in NSW which are the result of a minor traffic violation. The problem comes down to a serious flaw in police policy that.  As the Deputy Coroner found:

“82. There is, however, a more fundamental problem. In my opinion, the philosophy of traffic law enforcement as conveyed in the NSWPF report is flawed in that, paradoxically, it overemphasises law enforcement to the detriment of public safety. This philosophy is given concrete form in a flawed pursuit policy and NSWPF implementation of that policy.

83. There is no other NSW government policy of which I am aware that is implemented and defended in the certain knowledge that it will result in the deaths of and injuries to NSW motorists and pedestrians. It is not overstating the case to describe the current practice of conducting high-speed pursuits as a form of “Russian roulette”. It is impossible to predict when someone will be killed or injured but at some stage that is the inevitable result of this policy. When viewed from that perspective, it is difficult to justify the policy in its current form.

84. Even when the injury or death is suffered by an offender, it is an extra-judicial punishment so severely disproportionate to almost any offence that he or she may have committed that it is also disastrous. And, as I have previously observed, the tragic consequences are inflicted not only on the offender but on his or her family and friends and the wider community.”

The NSW Police Minister needs to take responsibility for years of inaction in this area. NSW police and compliant Ministers from both Labor and the Coalition have spent the last decade ignoring the best evidence and allowed minor traffic offences to routinely escalate into deadly high speed chases.

Because the Greens have been demanding the data from the NSW Police Force through questions in Parliament, we have known for years that more than 60% of police pursuits in NSW are for traffic infringements and most should be avoided, yet sadly it takes an avoidable death for the government to be forced to consider reform.

Read the full findings from the Coronial Inquest into the death of Hamish Raj

See all of David’s media comments given today here:

“NSW has far and away the most police chases of any state in NSW and the risks and dangers they create for police, offenders and innocent bystanders need to be properly considered.

“We have known for years that the majority police pursuits in NSW are for traffic infringements and most should be avoided, yet sadly it takes an avoidable death for the government to be forced to consider reform.

“Figures obtained from police by the Greens prove that the majority of NSW police car chases result from what are often minor traffic infringements that then escalate into highly dangerous police pursuits.

“While other police forces around the world are winding back the number of dangerous chases the NSW force has been stubbornly bucking that trend.

“The NSW Police Minister needs to explain why NSW police have spent the last decade ignoring the best evidence and continued to escalate often minor offences into deadly high speed chases.

“A police pursuit should be undertaken solely on the basis of the seriousness of the initial alleged offence, rather than on subsequent traffic violations.

“There is no doubt there are cases where pursuits are needed to catch a serious criminal or a person fleeing the scene of a violent crime, but this isn’t the case for the majority of police chases in NSW.

“The technology available to modern police such as in-car police cameras, polair and comprehensive on-line databases, means that nine times out of ten non-violent offenders can be far more safely and easily arrested by police when they return home than following a high speed chase.

“It’s time that NSW learned from jurisdictions in the US as well as Queensland and Tasmania where police chases are only undertaken to chase serious offenders,” Greens NSW MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge.

Facts and further material:

Data obtained by the Greens has found that 60% of all NSW high speed police car pursuits in 2013 were commenced as a result of traffic offences.  A further 15% were due to failure to stop at an RBT and only a tiny minority, 11%, were to pursue a fleeing criminal from a crime scene with a further 15% chasing a stolen vehicle.

New Attorney General Brad Hazzard and new Police Minister Stuart Ayres today announced a plan to further increase police powers, despite the new Police Minister and Attorney General having been in the job less than a month.

The Government’s proposed amendments to LEPRA are likely to further strip protections under s201 of that Act which only requires that police must identify themselves and their station when exercising their powers under the act.

Greens MP and Police spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Police have long campaigned against the simple requirements under LEPRA to tell people their name, station and explain why they are arresting someone.

“The Police Minister has been in the job only a week, he hardly knows his way around the office let alone the complexities of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. This has all the hallmarks of the Police Association driving government policy.

“The idea that this basic safeguard is an unnecessary complexity is extremely worrying coming from the new Police Minister.

“Society grants police extraordinary powers over members of the community, however these must be accompanied by safeguards that prevent these powers being abused.

“It is deeply troubling that the first serious legislation from the new-look Attorney-General and Police Minister strips away more civil liberties in NSW,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Today in Parliament David read a Notice of Motion calling on the House to show support for the Bentley community expressing their democratic right to peacefully protest against harmful gas mining.

Mr Shoebridge says—

Mr PRESIDENT:

I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move:

That this House:

1. Expresses its support for the right of communities to engage in peaceful, non-violent protests to protect their land and water

2. Acknowledges the strength of community support for the Bentley CSG blockade in Northern NSW including support from:

1. A large cross-section of the local community;
2. Local Councils and Mayors; and
3. Religious and community leaders.

3. Notes that a 2012 plebiscite in Lismore City Council found that 87% of local residents opposed coal seam gas exploration and production in their area.

4. Calls on the Coalition Government and NSW Police to:

1. ensure that the peaceful nature of the blockade is respected; and
2. to refrain from the use of Emergency Powers under Part 6A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to break up and disperse this peaceful community action.

You can also do your bit to support the community by taking the time  to call, email or tweet Premier Baird and other ministers listed below:

Further evidence of police intimidation and the deplorable treatment of injured police officers has emerged with footage of four police officers attending the house of two injured officers under the guise of a ‘welfare check’. Even more astoundingly one officer arrived at the house with a taser drawn.

This is a case study in why the Parliament should support the Greens inquiry into how police handle the welfare needs of psychologically injured police and their families.

 Find out more about this important issue and the urgent need to break the silence on police psychological injuries here.

This speech was delivered on 18/06/2014 in the NSW Upper House.  You can read the full debate online here. 

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.36 a.m.]: Perhaps what is most disturbing about the contributions from both the Government and the Opposition is that neither representative addressed the fact that the Tink-Whelan report—as grossly flawed as it was in its failure to consult; as grossly pro-police as it was in that the authors of the report spoke only to the police, and even when the appallingly biased nature of the report is taken into account—made it clear that the police do not need the extension provided in the bill and that the great majority of cases are easily dealt with within four hours. The problem—if there is one—about detaining people beyond four hours is a problem in the mechanics of obtaining an extension, which can take the better part of two hours. If the Government were serious about addressing the problems in this part of the bill, it would be addressing the mechanics of obtaining an extension. Instead, the Government has simply reduced everybody’s civil liberties. That is the proposal of the Government, which is supported by the Labor Opposition. They have reduced everybody’s civil liberties by allowing anybody who is the subject of arrest to be held for six hours for questioning.

We know that the police say they do not need six hours in the great majority of cases but, blind to that, the Government, with the strong support of the Opposition, simply says, “We don’t care about those civil liberties. We will just remove those civil liberties issues for everybody because in the tiny minority of cases the police can spend a couple of hours obtaining an extension.” If the Government were serious about fixing the problems in the legislation—and there are some—it would be fixing the process of obtaining an extension of time, not just removing or watering down everybody’s civil liberties and providing that anybody can be detained for six hours by the police in these circumstances.

We had crocodile tears in the contributions made by the Hon. Ernest Wong and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Searle, about civil liberties and pretended concern about the expansion of police powers. But time and time and time again when it comes to the vote and when it comes to standing up for the principles of civil liberties, we find the Opposition in this place caving in to the Government. Another example is the one-punch laws and in this instance the Opposition is caving in on the extension of time for which people can be routinely detained by the police after arrest. When it becomes too difficult to run the argument in the pages of the Daily Telegraph, principle escapes out the door, politics takes over and again we see attacks on civil liberties attracting broad support in this Chamber.

The Greens will stand on principle in relation to this matter. We believe that, consistent with all the best advice from the Law Reform Commission and even, when it is properly read, the Tink-Whelan report, there should not be an extension of time for which police can hold suspects or persons arrested in these circumstances. The Government’s only support is a report that is a quarter of a century old. It pulls a 25-year-old report out of archives, dusts it off, puts it on the table and says, “Oh well, 25 years ago there was some support for looking at an extension in certain circumstances.” But, in doing that, the Government fails to refer—as did Tink and Whelan—to the most recent report from the Law Reform Commission, which said exactly the opposite. The body that is charged with examining law reform in this State talks to a broad range of stakeholders, considers matters seriously and says, “Don’t do this”, but what does the Government do? It ignores the Law Reform Commission.

A couple of months later the Government gets its nod-and-a-wink report from Tink and Whelan—for which they only talked to police—and, when it realises even that report offers paper-thin support, it hunts around in the archives for a 25-year-old report to support its argument. There is no principled basis upon which to put forward this proposal. It is a power grab that has been pushed by the police and, sadly, this Parliament—whether it is the Government, the Labor Opposition or the balance of the crossbench—is refusing to stand up to it.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.49 a.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet C2014-050 in globo:

No. 1 Page 9, schedule 2 [15], line 16. Omit “12 months”. Insert instead “3 years”.

No. 2 Page 9, schedule 2 [15], line 25. Omit “12-month”. Insert instead “3-year”.

These amendments provide for a three-year review of the changes to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. As I made clear in my second reading contribution, the changes the Government has proposed, with the support of the Opposition, present significant concerns for civil liberties in this State. The blanket increase from four to six hours for the period that people can be held after arrest is a substantial watering down of civil liberties in this State. There is no good basis upon which this change is proposed. It is not supported by the Law Reform Commission or by Tink and Whelan. When it is rolled out it is likely to lead to poor practice in this State and a substantial degradation of people’s right to liberty until such time as they are found guilty by a court. Therefore, to propose to review that change only 12 months after these laws come into effect is to propose a pretend review. Of course, it would mirror the Government’s pretend review with the Tink and Whelan report. The Greens proposal is to increase the review period from 12 months to three years.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is primarily the Opposition Whip.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There are children giggling to my right as well.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Greens amendments would increase the review period to three years and require the Ombudsman to provide a report thereafter. It is not just the increased period for which people will be detained that must be subject to review. Changes to sections 201 to 204 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act—which, effectively, remove the obligation of police officers to explain to people why they are being arrested before they are arrested and essentially remove the obligation for police officers to tell people their name and station before arresting them—are likely to produce a significant change for the worse in police culture in New South Wales. If police officers cannot explain to people beforehand why they are being arrested, why are police officers arresting people in the first place? For some bizarre reason, the majority in this Chamber—a majority in the Parliament—will remove that obligation on police.

Notionally, it is kept on the statute book: The law states that police need to, as soon as practicable, tell people why they are being arrested and explain why police powers under the Act are being exercised. But if the police simply fail to tell people why they are being arrested or why the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act powers are being exercised, they are not subject to a penalty. Removing any penalty or sanction when police breach the Act presents a significant concern for consequential change in police culture. Obviously, any review of this legislation needs to be much more systemic than just 12 months, as proposed by the Government. That is why The Greens propose amending the review period. If substantial changes to police operations in this State are to be reviewed seriously, it should be a fair dinkum review and cover three years rather than just the 12-month pretend review that the Government has proposed.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.54 a.m.]: I agree that if there is a problem we should get a report, but we will not know if there is a problem within the first 12 months. Police culture—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What, no-one is going to be arrested in 12 months? Is that what you are saying?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Another useful interjection from the Government Whip.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No-one is going to be arrested in 12 months? What a genius you are!

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note and accept the interjection from the Government Whip. Changes to police culture take years or decades. For the past 15 years police have had a clear obligation to explain to people, because of the provisions of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, why they are exercising their powers under that Act. Good police will continue to endeavour to do that. When it becomes apparent to police that if they just arrest people and tell them at some point down the track why and how they have exercised the powers there is no sanction, and when they see those cases work their way through the court system and realise that breaching the Act comes with no penalty and they do not have to go through the rigmarole of actually telling people why they are arrested in the first place, the culture will begin to change and we will see the standards slipping.

No doubt the Government wants a review after 12 months because there will be only a few decided cases and little track record on which to proceed, and the Government can tick off on the outcome, just as it did with the Tink and Whelan report. A far more rigorous approach is to wait for three years. It is not surprising that The Greens are not getting majority support in this Chamber for these amendments. We had hoped to have support from the crossbenches for this matter of substantial principle, but apparently not.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.56 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2 to 4 on sheet C2014-051D in globo:

No. 2 Page 9, schedule 2 [15], lines 24 and 25. Omit “that 12-month period”. Insert instead “each period of 12 months during the 3-year period referred to in subclause (1)”.

No. 3 Page 9, schedule 2 [15], line 28. Omit “the report”. Insert instead “any such annual report”.

No. 4 Page 9, schedule 2 [15], line 36. Omit “the report”. Insert instead “a report”.

As I indicated, the first amendment of The Greens is the same as Labor’s foreshadowed amendment No. 1. Labor’s amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 are consequential on the first amendment, seeking to achieve the same outcome as Mr David Shoebridge’s amendment. As indicated, the Opposition believes a better and fuller review period should be in place. This change to the law is significant in certain respects, as Mr David Shoebridge has indicated. We believe there should be proper monitoring of the effect of the change in the law over that three-year period, including periodic annual reporting. We believe that is the only proper way to gain an appreciation of what practical change is occurring on the ground, if any is occasioned by these otherwise, on the face of it, significant changes to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. For more abundant caution, so the public and the Parliament can gain a real-time appreciation of what is happening under the changes, we believe these amendments are not only prudent but also necessary to maintain the integrity of the bill’s proposed changes to the law.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.58 a.m.]: The Greens will support Opposition amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4. I hate to say it, but they actually improve The Greens amendment because they provide for a report every 12 months rather than at the end of every three years, as our amendment provides.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Have a report every month or every day.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: A report every 12 months is an important oversight mechanism because we can see what, if any, changes are occurring. Hopefully, if there is an outbreak of sanity in this House and Parliament, and the changes produce poor outcomes in police culture—as I suspect they will—we will be able to intervene early to reverse some of the changes proposed. For those reasons we support the Opposition amendments.