Published in New Matilda, 26 March 2015.

Ever since the US terrorist attacks of September 2001, crime and investigative agencies have been demanding more and more powers to reach into our private and digital lives. This month’s incursion is mandatory metadata retention, a system better known under its traditional title of ‘Big Brother’, or universal government surveillance.

The Federal Government, aided and abetted by Labor, has just last week driven these laws through Parliament’s lower house. If they pass the Senate (which could be this week) they will require telecommunications companies to capture and store everyone’s metadata for two years: who you called and emailed, who contacted you, when, how long, and where you both were.

Well, that’s what they want for now – that category can be changed by regulation whenever the government chooses. Whilst the content of emails isn’t currently included, the metadata they plan to collect is personal to you, and in no way anonymised.

There’s no convincing explanation for the need for the laws, let alone the urgency. But in some ways, it’s shone a light on what is already occurring, quietly unregulated and unsupervised, between police and telcos.

Some metadata (though significantly less than the new law will require) is stored for telcos’ own purposes, like billing, and it’s freely obtained by police without a warrant: there are 500,000 metadata disclosures per year.

Rather than plug this gap in our protections, the Abbott government and their Labor Party friends are looking to exploit and broaden it.

So what’s the problem? First, Australians are a trusting lot, and perhaps the Facebook generation doesn’t value its privacy much yet. But we haven’t seen the full gamut of data misuse and abuse yet either. We do know that both governments and telcos are vulnerable to hacking, and leak personal data with alarming regularity. Plus, the more data they’ve hoarded, the more valuable a target it becomes.

No-one in a liberal democracy should be subject to this creeping intrusion, and when authorities say, ‘Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear,’ it’s a sign we’re on the slippery slope to a police state. It’s indiscriminate, dragnet policing of ordinary people.

Once the data is accumulated, it’s not just available for police and hackers – it’s available to be subpoenaed by angry former partners in family law proceedings, anti-piracy copyright enforcers, or insurance companies trying to disprove claims.

Consider the situation of those with something to hide who aren’t terrorists or gang members. Consider the communications between doctors and patients, counsellors and abuse survivors, lawyers and clients, and commercially sensitive business-to-business dealings. Add to this anyone in witness protection schemes, people seeking refuge from a violent past, or even bankers and traders in the finance industry who we know are already being targeted in cyber espionage from foreign spies.

Who will this system catch? Almost certainly not people planning major terror events. Malcolm Turnbull has already said that savvy operators can anonymise and encrypt their communications so metadata can’t be captured. Anyone with sinister motivations will likely avoid the domestic data retention regime entirely by retreating to the ‘dark web’, and use routers like Tor to hide their identity.

If it’s that easy, you have to wonder if it’s worth it.

To add insult to injury, compulsory data retention is estimated to cost $400 million in its first year, which we will all pay through higher phone and data bills – or tax.

If the Coalition’s and ALP’s deal becomes law there is only one group whose metadata crime agencies will require a warrant to access: journalists.

Bound by a code of ethics to protect their sources, journalists are rightly concerned this law quickly becomes an anti investigative journalism, anti whistle-blower weapon. Of course even this protection is limited, because when Attorney General Brandis and the ALP talk of protecting ‘journalists’ they don’t mean citizen journalists or bloggers, only those directly employed by entities like Newscorp.

Even if journalists’ sources can’t be identified without a warrant, this so-called protection is paper-thin. It’s not hard to imagine authorities pursuing the media – because it’s not hypothetical.

A recent Parliamentary inquiry into the NSW police bugging scandal found that TV reporter Steve Barrett was targeted by crime agencies with dozens of improperly obtained covert surveillance warrants between 1999 and 2000.

The inquiry uncovered a series of warrants being rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court. In one case, there was zero supporting evidence for 46 of the 114 targets on a single covert surveillance warrant. A former judge admitted that there is no way to properly check that the warrants were in order. He resorted to checking for obvious errors like inclusion of the names “M. Mouse” or “D. Duck” before he signed off. He also couldn’t remember refusing a single one.

Journalists will be like dolphins caught in a dragnet, and collecting metadata puts their independence at risk.

Where you go, who you speak with, who you write to, can reveal significant details of your life. The fact is that once this data is collected and retained then no government and no corporation can seriously protect it. The Greens say the answer to this dilemma is straight forward, if you can’t protect it then don’t collect it.

In the meantime, since neither the Government nor the Opposition are interested in protecting your privacy, the Greens are following Malcolm Turnbull’s advice and hosting our own Crypto Parties to teach you how to encrypt our own data.

Our experts can give you some straightforward steps to protect the details of your electronic life from the coming Government cyber-snoops.

Just remember that, until you’re encrypted, spread the word by crayon and chalk because it’s none of Mr Brandis’ business.

As reported by VICE:

The NSW Police drug dog presence at this month’s Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras was substantial, as it has been in previous years. After having marched in the parade Tom, who prefers to keep his last name private, made his way to the after-party. The 28-year-old health industry worker arrived at the Moore Park event wearing a large backpack, only to be confronted by an officer with a dog.

“The handler was on the other side of the crowd. He made eye contact with me. I was nowhere near the dog, but as I was walking in and joined the line, he walked through the crowd towards me. He put his hand on my backpack before the dog even indicated and then the dog sat down,” he told VICE.

Tom was then led away by police officers to a tent nearby, where he was subjected to persistent questioning and his bag was searched. He was then told to take off his clothes and squat before the officers. No drugs were found on him, as he didn’t have any.

“It’s anxiety provoking. I know a lot of people who avoid major parties like that because of the sniffer dogs, even if they’re not planning on taking any drugs,” Tom said. “If you have drugs or not, there’s still the potential there to take you off and subject you to that humiliating experience.”

But the LGBTQI community is not the only marginalised group to be targeted by the NSW Police Dog Unit.

Last year, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge obtained figures from the NSW Police Minister outlining that in 2013 17,746 people were searched by police after being indicated by dogs. And of these searches 64 to 72 percent were false indications, where no drugs were found. In cases where drugs were found most were of small amounts for personal use, with only 2.44 percent of positive searches resulting in a supply conviction.

“There are people being heavily over policed by the use of drug dogs. A passenger getting off at Redfern station is six and a half times more likely to be searched than a passenger getting off at Central. What distinguishes those populations is that Redfern has a very large Aboriginal population and a large young student population,” Shoebridge said. “Redfern is over policed. They’ve got a higher false positive rate and a lower detection rate.”

Ray Jackson, president of the Indigenous Social Justice Association, said Redfern station is the most heavily searched area by drug dogs in Sydney. And while there are a lot of university students, the police mainly target Aboriginal people, especially the youth. “The coppers use this as a tool to further harass people. They’ve been instances where they’ve been taken from Redfern station over to the police station and they’ve been stripped searched and nothing is generally found. So I don’t know why they continue to do it,” he said.

Jackson, a Wiradjuri man, explained police are also conducting dog searches in and around the Department of Housing blocks in nearby Waterloo. Tenants, visitors and tradespeople are all subject to being searched and this is terrifying some of the older tenants.

Over the last three years, the largest expansion of drug dog operations has been the NSW Police Transport Command, who patrol the City Rail network. These searches have resulted in an 80 percent false positive rate. According to Will Tregoning, director of harm reduction organisation Unharm, these searches are more likely to target people from a lower socioeconomic background, who have more tendency to be using public transport.

Drug dog operations are also commonly carried out at music festivals and dance parties, with accounts of up to six dogs being deployed at one event, accompanied by 50 to 60 officers. Tregoning warns that such operations rarely deter attendees from taking illicit drugs but more often have other effects that increase the risk of overdose.

“Preloading, taking all your drugs before you go to an event in order to avoid detection, is very risky behaviour,” he told VICE, going on to outline the risk of panic-based overdose. “Someone sees the drug dog operation and takes all their drugs at once in order to avoid detection, which was clearly implicated in the death of James Munro at Defqon 1 in 2013.”

Further adverse effects are instances where people swallow bags containing drugs, which can subsequently burst. Others may switch to less detectable substances, which can lead to people moving away from relatively harmless drugs such as marijuana to substances such as GHB, which is potentially more harmful.

A spokesperson for NSW Police told VICE that the Dog Unit deploys dogs when requested by local area and specialist commands for operations at public events, on the public transport network and at licensed premises.

“Drug detection dogs are effective at identifying the presence of odour of prohibited drugs,” the spokesperson said. “Drugs are a major contributing factor to crime across NSW, therefore any and all efforts by NSW Police to detect prohibited drugs is worthwhile.”

But Shoebridge believes drug dog operations are being conducted so that police and the government can be seen to be taking effective action against drugs, in order to appease certain segments of the community.

“They know it has no impact on supply. They know it has adverse impacts in terms of users responding by preloading or by consuming their drugs in an instant when they see the dogs. This is about being seen to do something on the war on drugs that they are patently losing,” he said.

This last summer season of music festivals has been notable for large scale drug dog operations. The standard operating procedures for NSW Police outline that every dog deployed at an event must be accompanied by twelve officers. Shoebridge feels this is an extraordinary misallocation of police resources that could be better directed to public safety in other areas where it is needed.

Find out more and join the Sniff Off campaign. 

View the full recommendations

Greens NSW Spokesperson for Police, David Shoebridge, together with injured police, their families and relevant experts has today be launched a comprehensive roadmap for reform on police psychological injuries.

The recommendations for reform in the roadmap have been developed in consultation with injured police and their families as well as legal and medical professionals and reflect the input gathered in the December 2014 Parliamentary Forum on injured police.

As reported by the Illawarra Mercury:

Insurance companies should be prevented from placing former police officers under covert surveillance unless they can demonstrate reason to believe the officers are exaggerating their psychological symptoms or acting dishonestly, NSW MP David Shoebridge says.

And he says insurance companies found to have ordered surveillance without good reason should be fined or face litigation.

Mr Shoebridge believes changes are needed to stop the unnecessary aggressive and relentless tactics used to investigate total and permanent disability claims of psychologically ill police officers.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said:

“Too many police suffer psychological injury at work and too often they are not given the support needed to cope with their injuries.

“If we expect police to run into danger on behalf of the public, the public needs to be there to assist police if they are injured.

“Psychological injuries aren’t second class injuries and must not be treated that way by the existing police culture and legal structure.

“In working with professional from the medical and legal fields, together with injured police and their families we have attempted to draw a roadmap to fundamentally reform how injured police are treated.

“These recommendations will go a long to addressing the unmet needs of psychologically injured police, their families and colleagues,” Mr Shoebridge said.

For further information and reporting:

- Police on the scrap heap – blueprint for reform in managing stress disorders: Sydney Morn

- Police who take their own lives should be on honour roll, NSW Government should pass reforms, NSW Greens say

- Copping trauma: reforms urged for NSW

– Parliamentary Forum on Police Pyschological Injuries – wrap up

- Death in the line of duty: breaking the silence on police psychological injuries

Arming police witnesses when they are in attendance at courts will break with centuries of tradition of removing weapons from courts, and produce no positive safety outcomes.

Concerns have come to the fore again with the NSW Police Association calling for police to be able to carry guns into courts, threatening to ‘black ban’ police witnesses giving evidence in person if they are not armed.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Police come to court as witnesses, not to maintain court security, that’s the job of the NSW Sheriffs Office.

“No other witness in what is a time-honoured, peaceful system of dispute resolution is allowed to be armed, let alone carry a gun.

“The Court Sheriffs are well resourced, with handcuffs, metal detectors and x-ray screening, while dangerous in-custody defendants are secured with guards and segregated cells in court.

“The Police Association has given three examples of police assisting in court security incidents, and not a single one of those incidents would have benefited by adding a gun to the mix.

“It would be an extremely rare case where adding a gun to a packed courtroom will make anyone in attendance safer.

“In exceptional cases, such as genuine terrorist threats, police can ask for permission from the courts to carry firearms. There’s absolutely no reason for it to be the norm.

“General duties police in the United Kingdom and New Zealand manage to maintain public order nation-wide without guns. There is no doubt that NSW courts can be kept safe without the addition of heavily armed police,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Media contact: David Shoebridge 9230 3030

Media release
7 May 2015

The NSW Ombudsman has included a statement on an obscure part of his website stating that his report on ‘Operation Prospect’ is “unlikely” to be tabled by June despite having informed a NSW Parliamentary Committee earlier this year that he intended to deliver his report by then.

This is the latest delay in the delivery of the Ombudsman’s police bugging report and will inevitably require the Premier to again extend the Ombudsman’s term of office so that this multi-million dollar inquiry can be finished.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“It’s not good enough for the Ombudsman, who is answerable to the taxpayers of NSW, to announce another indefinite delay in delivering his report.

“It has now taken the Ombudsman almost three years to investigate this one matter.

“Admittedly the Ombudsman’s inquiry is complex, but even the Wood Royal Commission that reviewed the entire NSW police force only took three years and it held 419 hearings, examined 856 witnesses and received 226 public submissions.

“What the Ombudsman has failed to address in announcing yet more delay is that his term of office expires on 30 June this year.

“By delaying his report the Ombudsman is effectively forcing the Premier to once again extend his term.

“This places the Premier in an extremely uncomfortable position of either agreeing to the extension or seeing the entire project fall into further disarray.”

“Mr Barbour has already had one temporary extension from the government, has he requested Premier Baird to give him another extension and, if so, on what terms?

“The police bugging scandal has plagued the top ranks of NSW Police for over a decade, and the Parliamentary Inquiry’s report was emphatic that it needs to be finalised as a priority.

“This interminable wait for the Ombudsman to deliver his report is prolonging the tension amongst senior police and delaying the government’s reform of police oversight.

“If the Ombudsman’s continued delay demonstrates anything it is the utter failure of the existing mechanisms to oversight NSW Police,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Media contact: David Shoebridge 9230 3030

Last weekend David Shoebridge and Senator Senator Richard Di Natale (now Australian Greens Parliamentary Leader) spoke at the Hemposium, part of the annual MardiGrass Festival. MardiGrass is held in the small town of Nimbin in northern NSW and draws thousands of attendees from over the world to speak frankly and honestly about cannabis law reform.

David spoke about the expanding use of police drug dogs, civil liberties and law reform. Drug dogs are increasingly used by police at festivals, bars and on public transport without a warrant. When a drug dog indicates that a person has drugs, police use that as a basis for a search, despite the fact that two thirds of dog indications are false positives. In NSW over 17,000 people a year are subjected to these searches.

Over 700 people a year are also subjected to strip searches, which can involve the victim being completely naked and forced to squat over a mirror. These incredibly invasive searches are just as ineffective as the regular searches, finding no drugs at least 60% of the time.

Even when police do find drugs, it is normally a small amount for personal consumption. Only 2.44% of searches result in a supply conviction, and many of these are under “deem supply” laws which provide that any amount of drugs above a certain threshold must be for sale, even without any evidence.

The use of drug dogs particularly affects the normal police targets – young people, poor people, Aboriginal and LGBTI communities. One of the main locations of drug dog searches is public transport, despite the dogs being less effective here than anywhere else. High-level drug dealers don’t have to catch the train, especially to transport drugs – they drive BMWs.

It’s not just any railway station that attracts drug dogs. Police target their operations at particular locations.

A passenger at Redfern Station is 6.5 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a passenger at Central, but drugs are less likely to be found at Redfern. This massive over-policing affects students going to Sydney University and the significant Aboriginal population in Redfern.

The LGBTI community is also targeted, with Sydney Mardi Gras always featuring a heavy police presence and drug dogs at the after party.

David spoke about the limits of police search powers. Officers are only supposed to conduct a search if they have a reasonable suspicion of finding drugs. It is up for debate whether a drug dog indication is sufficient given a 64%-72% false positive rate. Police have now taken to saying that it is not only a dog indication but other mysterious “intelligence”. The figures suggest that being at Redfern station seems to fit the bill.

If you are searched:

Do:

• State that you do not consent to a search
• Record details of the officers involved and the conversation
• Get a friend to film the interaction from a few metres away (it is not illegal to film police)
• If the police do find drugs, give them your name and address

Don’t:

• Physically resist police
• Give any information to police (except your name and address if they find drugs)

David concluded by speaking about the NSW Greens’ Sniff Off campaign against the use of drug dogs without a warrant. An overview of the campaign can be found here.

As well as his main talk, David participated in the panel discussion “Let’s get the police out of healthcare… and the sniffer dogs too” with other speakers. When asked what one change he would like to see in drug legislation David spoke about the NSW Greens policy to legalise and regulate cannabis.

Senator Richard Di Natale, now parliamentary leader of the Australian Greens attended to speak about his efforts to change the law around medicinal cannabis. Details of the Australian Greens moves to legislate for medicinal cannabis can be found here.

Other speakers at the festival included Dr Alex Wodak, president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and Will Tregoning from Unharm. Unharm’s Ditch the Dogs petition can be found here.

Young Greens also handed out material detailing police search powers to festival attendees and spoke to them about the Sniff Off campaign. The next big event in the campaign is our Sniff Off Party, featuring performances from Paul Mac and others. Tickets are available here.

Media Release
15 May 2015

Fresh evidence has emerged into the ongoing delay of the Ombudsman’s police bugging inquiry, with his office now recruiting a fresh staff member to work on the investigation potentially up until December 2016.  This is four and a half years after it started.

This follows the Ombudsman disclosing last week that his report on ‘Operation Prospect’ is unlikely to be tabled by June this year when his term of office expires. The job details are here.

A Parliamentary Committee on the Conduct and Progress of the Ombudsman’s Inquiry “Operation Prospect” was set up last year due to these delays and the damaging effect on NSW Police which criticised the delay in the Ombudsman’s report.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:    

“It’s not good enough for the Ombudsman, who is answerable to the taxpayers of NSW, to continue to delay this report.

“It looks like the Ombudsman will now take well over three years to investigate this one matter.

“The Wood Royal Commission in the 1990’s reviewed the entire NSW police force and it only took three years, holding 419 hearings, examining 856 witnesses and considering 226 public submissions.

“No doubt the Ombudsman’s job is complex, but the extent of his delay is extraordinary and it is damaging to all involved.

“Delay of this length would not be tolerated anywhere else, whether in the private sector, executive government or the Courts.

“By any measure taking three plus years to deliver one report is a fail.

“The Ombudsman’s extended term of office expires at the end of June. The continuing failure to deliver his report is effectively forcing the Premier to keep extending his term.

“This places the Premier in an extremely uncomfortable position of either agreeing to the extension or seeing the entire project fall into further disarray.”

“Mr Barbour has already had one temporary extension from the government. Has he now requested Premier Baird to give him another extension and, if so, on what terms?

“The police bugging scandal has plagued the top ranks of NSW Police for over a decade, and the Parliamentary Inquiry’s report was emphatic that it needs to be finalised as a priority.

“This endless wait for the Ombudsman to deliver his report is prolonging the tension amongst senior police and delaying essential reform to the system of police oversight.

“If the Ombudsman’s continued delay demonstrates anything it is the utter failure of the existing mechanisms to oversight NSW Police,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Timeline of Ombudsman’s Delay:

• October 2012 – Police Bugging scandal referred to Ombudsman
• April 2013 – Initial expected report date expires
• September 2013 – Ombudsman’s term of office was to expire and is extended by 21 months to complete investigation
• November 2014  – Parliamentary inquiry into Ombudsman’s investigation established
• February 2015 – Parliamentary inquiry into Ombudsman’s investigation reports
• May 2015 – Ombudsman advises “unlikely to meet” extended June 2015 deadline for report
• May 2015 – Ombudsman recruiting further staff member for investigation for 6 to 18 months work on the matter
• June 2015 – Ombudsman’s extended term to expire
• December 2016 – new potential delivery date

Media contact: David Shoebridge 9230 3030

As reported by In The Mix:

If you – like drug research experts, harm minimisation campaigners and the NSW Greens – believe that drug sniffer dogs are ineffective and cause more harm than harm-prevention, then there’s a party for you. The “Sniff Off” party, happening in Sydney this Saturday, will protest against the use of sniffer dogs without a warrant, the Daily Telegraph reports.

The party’s organisers say that police use of drug dogs “disproportionately affects the poor, Aboriginal and queer communities.” Upper House Greens MP David Shoebridge told the Daily Telegraph that they’d decided to throw the party, “to fight for the right to be free from oppressive over-policing,” while Greens state MP Jenny Leong said, “We want a harm minimisation approach to drugs and we don’t want intimidation and harassment from police and sniffer dogs in our community.”

Research put out last year by harm reduction advocates Unharm found that the vast majority of searches conducted by sniffer dogs – including an alarming 60% of strip searches – failed to find drugs. A spokesperson for NSW Police countered to the Daily Telegraph that 70% of searches either found drugs or the person admitted having been in contact with drugs. “Anyone worried about drug detection dogs,” the police spokesperson said, “should simply not bring drugs to those events.”

But drug researchers and medical experts believe that sniffer dogs at parties and festivals can have fatal consequences. Sniffer dog operations “seem to only increase the health risks,” researchers Nicholas Cowdery and Alex Wodak wrote in the SMH last year, because the presence of drug dogs at festivals, “creates an incentive for attendees to take all their drugs at once prior to entering.”

If you want to protest the use of sniffer dogs, then head to the Red Rattler theatre in Sydney’s Marrickville this Saturday night, where there’ll be live performances by Paul Mac and a stack of other local acts; there’s more information at the Red Rattler website.

Find out more and order your tickets for Saturday night’s party here.

The very nature of policing, which involves the routine exposure of officers to the fact or threat of violent injury to themselves and others, means that one of the most common injuries suffered by police is Post Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSD). This is a reality that is often ignored by the Police Force and the insurers and agencies responsible for dealing with injured police.

NSW Police slideshow 1

Last year, the Greens requested from the NSW Police access to what training they provide to officers/cadets at the NSW Police Force Academy relating to how to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

After much resistance from NSW Police and a trip to the Tribunal, we were appalled to find that the training for police recruits on PTSD and mental health issues in general was both superficial and woefully inadequate. The materials themselves are embarrassingly undercooked – just two slideshows featuring childish tips like “draw a cow” and “never give up”. There is only one reference to PTSD which is buried in a list of dot points.

NSW Police slideshow 2

Thanks to brave accounts and activism by police, ex-police, and their families, the issue has been gathering steam and attracting increased media interest, finally bringing police psychological injuries out of the shadows.

As a result of our Parliamentary Forum on Police Psychological Injuries and other consultation with injured police and their families as well as legal and medical professionals, we recently released a Roadmap for Reform for police psychological injuries. We hope both NSW Police and the Government takes heed that police psychological injuries are rife, devastating, and poorly managed.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“We had to drag the police to court to get these documents, and I can see why they didn’t want to release them, they are embarrassingly inadequate.

“Knowing the considerable impact that post-traumatic stress has on serving and former police it is remarkable that the formal training given to NSW police is just one dot point in one powerpoint slide.

“When you talk to injured police, you hear the stress of their work and the horrific things they see, it is clear that the NSW Police Force needs to do much more to prepare new recruits for the job.

“Young recruits need to be given professional training together with strong peer and organisational support right from day one. That’s mean a good deal more than what this superficial powerpoint presentation delivers.

“Police don’t need to know how to draw a cow, they need to know what the first signs of PTSD are and that the culture of the Police will accept, and support, them putting their hand up and asking for help,” said Mr Shoebridge.

Other media on the issue:

• Police on the scrap heap – blueprint for reform in managing stress disorders (SMH)
• Police who take their own lives should be on honour roll, NSW Government should pass reforms, NSW Greens say (SMH)
• PTSD in the police force: MP David Shoebridge calls for parliamentary inquiry (Illawarra Mercury)
• PTSD in the police force: MP David Shoebridge has eye on sleuths (Illawarra Mercury)
• Death in the line of duty: breaking the silence on police psychological injuries (ABC Background Briefing)
• Copping trauma: reforms urged for NSW (News.com.au)

Today Greens member for Newtown Jenny Leong will give notice of a bill to end the use of drug detection dogs without a warrant on public transport, at festivals, bars and Kings Cross.

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Sniffer Dogs—Repeal of Powers) Bill 2015 aims to repeal parts of the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 relating to the use of drug detection dogs.  The Bill is the latest part of the Greens NSW “Sniff Off” campaign against the use of drug dogs.

You can find more information (including statistics) here.

The campaign is supported by musicians and performers including Paul Mac and Dan McNamee from Arts V Science who aim to protect their audiences from over-policing.

A Sniff Off Party will be held on Saturday 30 May at the Red Rattler in Marrickville, featuring Paul Mac and other artists.

Greens MP for Newtown Jenny Leong said:

“The evidence is in: the drug dogs program doesn’t work. The NSW police have better things to do than wrongly humiliating thousands of mainly young and marginalised people.

“If you are at Redfern Station, you are 6.5 times more likely to be searched than at Central Station.

“But Redfern has the highest false-positive rate of any Local Area Command. This isn’t evidence-based policing. So what’s it about?

“Drug policy and policing needs to be evidence-based and focussed on protecting the needs of the community. This means a harm minimisation approach to drugs, not abusing people’s rights,” Ms Leong said.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“When a police drug dog indicates somebody possesses drugs, the fact is they are getting it wrong between two thirds and three quarters of the time.

“Despite drug dogs being wrong most of the time, thousands of people on public transport, at bars and festivals are subjected to humiliating public searches each year.

“Even when police do find drugs, it is usually a small amount for personal consumption. Only 2% of searches result in a supply conviction.

“The drug dog regime does not target high-level drug dealers or suppliers. It targets young people, the poor and Aboriginal communities,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Paul Mac, musician, said:

“I think the use of sniffer dogs is an invasion of personal liberties. Nobody should be expected to undergo a strip search in order to enter a dance party or a music festival.

“Sniffer dogs are an aggressive way for the police force to talk to the public about drug use, of any kind.

“So many police resources are wasted enforcing this policy which could be spent out on the street preventing violent crimes,” Paul Mac said.       

More media:

Last weekend the Greens NSW hosted a Sniff Off Party at the Red Rattler in Marrickville to coincide with the introduction of the Sniffer Dogs Repeal Bill.

Paul Mac, a great supporter of the Sniff Off campaign, played live, along with Hip Hop Hoe, Love Club, Gang of She, Platform 19, Hubble, Wyldestyle, Cihan Saral.

Last week, Greens member for Newtown Jenny Leong gave notice of a bill to end the use of drug detection dogs without a warrant on public transport, at festivals, bars and Kings Cross. This is an issue close to the heart of many musicians who see the effects of sniffer dogs on the live music scene. Dan McNamee from the band Art vs Science joined Greens MPs and Paul Mac last week to help launch the bill.

The Greens are the only party that opposes the use of this ineffective and resource-intensive police power. The international debate on drug law enforcement and law reform is rapidly changing. The Criminal law committee of Bar Association, traditionally a conservative entity, has recently released a discussion paper that puts forward the regulation and legalisation of drugs as the most effective harm minimisation approach available to policy makers.

The inaccuracy of the drug dog program, the violations of civil liberties, and the inappropriate targeting of vulnerable people meant it should be stopped.

SNIFF OFF: THE FACTS

1. Can drug dogs actually sniff out drugs?

Their success rate is little better than chance. NSW Police gave statistics to the Parliament as a result of Questions on Notice by David. According to the figures, drug dogs falsely indicate the presence of drugs 64-72% of the time.

This week, the boss of the Dog Squad Commander Superintendent Donna Adney told the Daily Telegraph that only one in four people stopped by the dogs had drugs in their possession. So they’re wrong three quarters of the time.

But the NSW Police pepper members of the public with questions about contact, however remote, of contact with drugs. If there are any admissions, they chalk this up as a success. Police claim over 70% of indications by the dogs result in either drugs being located or the person admitting contact with illegal drugs. Even accepting this untested anecdotal evidence form the police it still means that, at least two-thirds of their 70% is made up admissions to being in the presence of drugs, not being possession of drugs.

Given that 42% of people over 14 have tried illegal drugs, and one in seven have taken drugs in the last 12 months, this is unsurprising. For people in their 20s, it’s more than a quarter.

Can you charge people with admitting to having taken drugs? No. Are they referred for treatment? No. Are they dealers? Most likely not. This is no better than a street survey.

2. Do drug dogs lead to convictions for drug supply?

Most people who are found with drugs are carrying small amounts of cannabis – they are not dealers.

NSW Police provided the following figures: in 2013 17,746 people were searched by police after being indicated by dogs. Of these searches 64 to 72% were false indications, where no drugs were found. In cases where drugs were found most were of small amounts for personal use, with only 2.44% of positive searches resulting in a supply conviction.

3. Do drug dogs deter people from drug use or possession?

No. In a recent study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, lead researcher Caitlin Hughes said 62% of festival goers said they would take drugs either way, but that the presence of sniffer dogs would prompt two key changes. 13% would use at least some of their drugs outside the venue, and there was a 40% increase in the relative consumption of ecstasy, methamphetamine and other drugs, as opposed to using cannabis. At best the potential presence of drug dogs changes people drug use, it doesn’t not reduce it.

4. Is the drug dog program applied fairly? How does it affect your civil liberties?

The drug dogs program focuses on music festivals, bars, public transport and Redfern which means it targets young people, Aboriginal communities and the poor. It doesn’t target cocaine use at high end bars or the amphetamines used by some truck drivers. A passenger getting off at Redfern station is six and a half times more likely to be searched than a passenger getting off at Central.

The excessive focus on Redfern, home to many Aboriginal people and students, is despite the fact that drug dog operations there have a higher false positive rate and a lower detection rate.

This police program seriously impacts everyone’s right to privacy, and leads to unnecessary, invasive, public searches – and for hundreds of people, strip searches. This process robs ordinary people of their dignity, with police asking people to squat naked over a mirror – and the law enforcement pay-off just isn’t worth it. These invasive strip searches by police have increased by almost a third in NSW over the past five years, with thousands of people stripped naked on the basis of sniffer dogs incorrectly indicating they are carrying drugs.

5. What is the problem with drug dogs?

• It’s distressing to be stopped by police, let alone when they have a dog, let alone when the dog gives a positive indication (which is mostly wrong), let alone when police scatter your belongings out on the ground, let alone when they take you aside and make you strip naked and squat over a mirror. It is a stressful, negative interaction that seriously damages police relations with the community.
• Drug sniffer dogs do not discourage overall drug taking and they certainly do not encourage safe drug taking. At least two young Australians have died at festivals when they swallowed all of their drugs at once to avoid detection. The ‘deterrence’ effect is shown to push people from cannabis to pills, since this is more difficult for sniffer dogs to detect.
• A 2006 Ombudsman’s report recommended the immediate end of the program.
• The program is clearly resource-intensive, but the NSW Police have so far failed to provide the actual cost. There are accounts of up to six dogs being deployed at one event, accompanied by 50 to 60 officers.

More media:

• Buzzfeed – Should Police Sniffer Dogs Be Banned From Music Festivals?
• 2006 Ombudsman’s Report which suggested scrapping drug dog legislation
• Sydney Morning Herald article about strip searches
• City News article about the targeting of Redfern
• Opinion piece by Alex Wodak and Nicholas Cowdery

Terms of reference of the proposed inquiry

MP’s from the Greens, Shooters and Fishers, and Labor will be supporting establishing the inquiry by an upper house oversight committee when Parliament resumes tomorrow.

As reported by the ABC:

The New South Wales ombudsman’s investigation of a police bugging scandal will once again be scrutinised by a parliamentary committee, amid concerns his report may not be finalised before his term in the position expires.

The Upper House inquiry follows a similar probe earlier in the year, which made a number of recommendations, including for a new police oversight body to deal with complaints.

The committee, to be chaired by the Shooter’s party’s Robert Borsak, will again look at the progress of ‘Operation Prospect’ – the ombudsman’s investigation into the improper surveillance of senior police between 1999 and 2001.

The ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, has also been investigating the leaking of documents related to the issue.

A Parliamentary Committee on the Conduct and Progress of the Ombudsman’s Inquiry “Operation Prospect” was set up last year due to these delays and the damaging effect on NSW Police which criticised the delay in the Ombudsman’s report.

The $5 million Ombudsman’s inquiry has now taken more than two and a half years and Mr Barbour has advised that it is unlikely that the “Operation Prospect” report will be delivered before his term of office expires on 30 June 2015.

The Ombudsman has ruled out seeking a further reappointment or extension to his term of office.

Media release
9 June 2015

The announcement of a two year acting Ombudsman to replace the outgoing Ombudsman Bruce Barbour is a band-aid solution, say the Greens NSW. While the Greens welcome some measure of certainty regarding the future of the Ombudsman’s office, a short term appointment will not deliver the independence and stability needed to repair its damaged reputation.

The current Ombudsman is leaving office without having completed the much delayed report into police bugging, from the inquiry known as Operation Prospect.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“There is no doubt that Professor McMillan is highly qualified for the task however to ensure independence and stability the Ombudsman needs a long term, permanent appointment.

“The Ombudsman’s ongoing mishandling of the multi-million dollar police bugging inquiry has seriously damaged the office’s reputation. This requires a permanent fix not a two year band aid.

“No one would envy the new Ombudsman’s job of picking up the broken pieces of the police bugging inquiry and trying to turn it into a coherent report.

“Of course this is a job the current Ombudsman should have well and truly finished before he walked out of the office.

“This is another case of the Premier putting off necessary, long term, structural reforms in governance, just as he has with the oversight of police and corruption prevention in NSW,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Media contact: David Shoebridge 9230 3030

For more information, see previous post and media release on the Parliamentary inquiry into the delays in delivering the report on Operation Prospect.

The Police Integrity Commission’s report into the practice of “blind reporting” of child abuse by the Catholic Church to the NSW police has failed to call for the end of this damaging practice and failed to even refer to key evidence provided to the PIC where the police admitted to shredding evidence of child abuse. “Blind reporting” is the practice where the Catholic Church removed the identities of victims of child abuse when making reports to the police.

The key Police document evidencing the Police practice of shredding evidence was provided to the PIC by Greens MP David Shoebridge in the week prior to the PIC hearing. It was a Freedom of Information response from the NSW Police that stated in part:

Despite being provided with this police document the PIC has inexplicably found that:

“There was no evidence before the Commission that Cullen had destroyed any evidence, including any documents provided to her through her membership of the PSRG.”

The full document can be found here.

Freedom of Information response from the NSW Police that that reveal they routinely shredded documents related to child sexual abuse

Greens MP and Justice spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“It is incomprehensible that the PIC failed to even reference the Police’s own evidence that they shredded documents.

“It is simply wrong for the PIC to find that there was ‘no evidence’ that police destroyed any evidence. I gave them the evidence and that evidence was given to me by the NSW Police.

“The PIC found that the practice of blind reporting meant that avenues for police investigation of child abuse, access to corroborating evidence, and opportunities for victims to speak to police were all lost.

“By accepting the Catholic Church’s practice of blind reporting, police allowed victims to be denied justice and abusers to escape conviction.

“Given this, it is unthinkable that the PIC’s recommendation is only that the Police Force should ’reconsider the practice of blind reporting’. They couldn’t have come out with a weaker response.

“The practice of blind reporting is not only illegal, being in breach of s316 of the Crimes Act which prohibits concealing indictable offences, but it is unethical because it puts the interests of institutions ahead of the interests of children.

“In light of the fundamental flaws in the PIC report it is essential that this damaging practice of blind reporting to the NSW Police be thoroughly investigated by the well-respected Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse

“Both the Police Minister and the NSW Police Commissioner must immediately and publicly state the NSW Police will no longer accept any institution censoring its reports of child abuse,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Read the Newcastle Herald’s article here: Former DPP Nicholas Cowdery accuses NSW police of collusion with Catholic Church

Read the Newcastle Herald article here – Police Integrity Commission “lack of due diligence” – by Joanne McCarthy

The Police Integrity Commission has released a statement that apparently confirms they did not do even the most basic due diligence in investigating evidence of police shredding child abuse material. Despite being given documentary evidence citing a Detective Acting Superintendent from the Sex Crimes Squad that police had shredded the material, the PIC apparently did not even interview the officer.

The admission casts real doubt over the commission’s Operation Protea findings last week about the controversial practice of the church ‘‘blind reporting’’ abuse allegations to police.

We will refer the matter to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

See previous post for more background.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Today’s statement from the Police Integrity Commission shows an unforgivable lack of diligence on behalf of the oversight body.

“The PIC was provided with the police’s own document that recorded a senior officer from the Sex Crimes Squad stating that hard copies of Catholic Church meeting materials concerning reports of child abuse were shredded by the police. Yet it appears the PIC didn’t even interview this senior officer to find out more.

“The PIC’s failure to interview the senior sex crimes squad officer to find out how she got the information casts doubt over key findings on the police involvement in “blind reporting” of child abuse.

“Having not done the most obvious investigation, the PIC then dismissed the police document as hearsay evidence. We should all expect far more from this State’s principal police oversight body.

“The PIC statement admits that the draft minutes and agendas of the Catholic Church Professional Standards Resource Group (“PSRG” the Church body that dealt with reports of child abuse) were destroyed by a police officer.

“The minutes must have included the decisions made on the child abuse matters considered and, if nothing else, this was prima facie evidence of breaches of section 316 of the Crimes Act, as they represent non-disclosure of crucial information related to indictable offences.

“While the police officer who attended the PSRG has stated that “only” the agendas and minutes of the meetings were destroyed and not the edited child abuse reports themselves, the only corroborative evidence relied upon by the PIC came from the Catholic Church.

“Apart from one police officer involved, the principal sources used by the PIC to conclude that no evidence was shredded all came from the Catholic Church, while the police officer named in the document that could corroborate the shredding was apparently not even interviewed as part of the inquiry.

“Given the seriousness of the concerns raised, it is simply inconceivable that this was not a prominent concern in the PIC report into Operation Protea,” Mr Shoebridge said.

You can read David’s adjournment speech on Operation Protea here.

Aboriginal people in NSW are more likely to charged, more likely to be refused bail and more likely to spend time in jail than non-Aboriginal people who commit the same offence.

The criminal justice system is NSW is increasingly biased against Aboriginal people according to the latest comprehensive report. The latest analysis released by BOCSAR shows that from 2001 to 2015 every step of the criminal justice system, from police to courts, is delivering higher rates of Aboriginal incarceration, despite falling crime rates (also documented in a BOCSAR report released today).

• 40% increase in rate of Aboriginal people in jail between 2001 and 2015, with a continued upward trend.
• Almost doubling of the Aboriginal jail population from 2001 to 2015 from fewer than 1,500 Aboriginal people locked up in NSW to closer to 3,000.
• More Aboriginal people jailed for public order offences, rising from 121 Aboriginal people in 2001 to 197 in 2015, during a period where discretionary police powers were broadly expanded.
• 14 out of the 16 offence categories show an increase in the proportion of Aboriginal people convicted of an offence receiving a prison sentence.
• In 2015 there were 3,409 Aboriginal people convicted of judicial procedure offences, more than double the 2001 figure of 1,663.

BOCSAR concludes that: “The rise in Indigenous imprisonment in NSW is due to a combination of higher rates of arrest resulting in conviction, a greater likelihood of imprisonment given conviction and a higher rate of bail refusal”.

As reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: 

The Indigenous prisoner population has more than doubled in NSW over the past 15 years despite a sharp drop in arrests for serious crimes, prompting calls for an overhaul of bail laws which are hitting disadvantaged communities hardest.

Latest figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) reveal a 40 per cent rise in the rate of Indigenous imprisonment between 2001 and 2015, due in part to an increase in the rates of bail refusal.

At the same time, Indigenous involvement in violent crime and property crime declined by 37 per cent and 32 per cent respectively.

Almost 40 per cent of Indigenous defendants refused bail and held on remand – in custody awaiting trial or sentence – do not go on to receive a prison sentence at their final court appearance.

Greens MP David Shoebridge, the party’s justice spokesman, said the government should wind back “regressive amendments” to the state’s bail laws, which took effect from January 2015.

The changes effectively reintroduced a presumption against bail for certain offences, which had been scrapped in 2014 under a new regime intended to simplify the bail process and remove ad hoc categories where the presumption applied.

Greens MP and Aboriginal Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Aboriginal people in NSW are more likely to be charged for offences, less likely to be released on bail and more likely to serve prison sentences than non-Aboriginal offenders.

“What that means, is that a time where Aboriginal offending is going down, even more people are being locked up.

“The aggressive approach to policing and raft of fresh offences introduced by both the coalition and Labor has seen more Aboriginal people put in gaol.

“Whether it’s consorting laws, move on powers or public order offences these discretionary police powers are disproportionately directed at Aboriginal people.

“Chronic housing shortages faced by Aboriginal communities together with higher rates of poverty result in a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people being refused bail or found in breach of judicial orders.

“When this structural disadvantage is added to a lack of cultural understanding, the criminal justice system delivers gross injustices to Aboriginal people in NSW.

“The rise in Aboriginal imprisonment is against a backdrop of reduced offending.

“Harsher sentencing across just three offences accounts for an additional 600 Aboriginal people in jail in 2015 than 2001.

“The serious overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system is found at every level, from arrest and charge to bail, sentencing and parole. The first step in addressing racial bias against Aboriginal people in our criminal justice system is for every political party to accept this an unjust reality.

“Addressing Aboriginal overrepresentation requires a root and branch reform of the criminal justice system.

“The long term solution is a change in politics, and a change in focus from jailing in our first people to investing in their success through justice reinvestment,” Mr Shoebridge said.

NSW Police Minister Troy Grant has been captured by the ugly minority gun lobby in the NSW National Party and is seeking to impose a US style approach to gun control by lifting the ban on the Adler A110 lever action shotgun.

Troy Grant’s unseemly intervention in the gun debate is the first time in more than 20 years that a NSW Police Minister has actively sought to undermine the National Firearms Agreement.

Premier Mike Baird and Malcolm Turnbull must urgently intervene to put community safety ahead of gun politics and maintain the ban on the importation of the Adler.

Greens NSW Senator and Gun Control Spokesperson Lee Rhiannon said:

“Prime Minister Turnbull seems so desperate to pass his anti-worker union busting bill that he is prepared to barter away our stringent gun laws.

“It is time to strengthen the National Firearm Agreement, not water it down.

“It will be a new low for the Turnbull government if it weakens our gun laws, compromising public safety, in order to push through a bill which will make workplaces less safe.

“This Adler shotgun import ban is in place on the best advice of state, territory and federal law enforcement agencies and it is absolutely vital that that ban stays in place.

“We cannot ‘modernise’ the National Firearm Agreement and leave the door open for the import of the Adler. The purpose of John Howard’s agreement was to limit access to rapid fire firearms in the interest of public safety, and that is what the Prime Minister must commit to doing.” Senator Rhiannon said.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“The NSW Police Minister has bowed to the gun lobby and is actively undermining the National Firearms Agreement with his calls to lift the importation ban on the Adler A110 lever action shotgun.

“After his defeat on greyhounds he is so scared of the right of his party that he is willing to sacrifice public safety on gun control.

“The Adler A110 can fire 8 shots in 8 seconds, easily qualifying it as the kind of rapid fire weapon the National Firearms Agreement was put in place to control after the Port Arthur Massacre.

“In the absence of any consensus between state and territory Ministers, there must be a ban on the importation and sale of dangerous rapid fire shot guns.

“The Police Minister needs to put up or shut up and table all the advice he has received from the NSW Police about the safety ramifications and effects of importing the Adler shotgun.” Mr Shoebridge said.

Baird’s backflip on the reclassification and importation of the Adler A110 shotgun will put community safety at risk and tear down the National Firearms Agreement.

Today’s announcement sees the Baird government pretending to support the importation ban while working to reclassify the weapon to facilitate its importation.

Ahead of tomorrow’s meeting with State and Federal Police and Justice Ministers, Greens MP David Shoebridge moved a motion in NSW Parliament calling  for parliamentary leaders to stand up for community safety and oppose any changes that would weaken Australia’s gun control laws.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Premier Baird is playing politics and is only pursuing a reclassification to tear down the import ban.

“This is Mike Baird at his tricky best, pretending to support a national ban on this dangerous weapon and then agreeing to a reclassification which would pave the way for its importation.

“Of course the Adler A110 should be reclassified as the dangerous category 3 weapon that it is. The current state of play that sees this multi-round shotgun have the same classification as an air rifle is just ridiculous.

“Firearms ownership in NSW is only increasing, and there is absolutely no need to allow this weapon to be added the already overstocked arsenals around the State.

“Australia has gun control laws to be proud of with widespread public support, but here in NSW we have a Coalition government actively trying to undermine them.

“There is a growing vocal and cashed-up minority gun lobby that is being given too great a voice in our parliaments, mainly through the far right of the National party.

“Mike Baird needs to find some political conviction and not trade off community safety for an internal political deal with the pro-gun National MPs.” Mr Shoebridge said.