The Indigenous incarceration inquiry today announced by the Federal Government is a symbolic recognition of our broken criminal justice system, but comes 25 years after the ground-breaking report from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was handed down. The bulk of these recommendations have still not been implemented.

Just last month the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released a report showing 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.

Greens MP and Aboriginal Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“This is a belated recognition from the Commonwealth Government that there is a problem, and that is welcome, but another inquiry isn’t necessary. We know what is broken and it’s time to fix it.

“All the evidence shows that from arrest to charge to bail to court to jail, Aboriginal people face a biased criminal justice system.

“We don’t need another inquiry, we need an urgent implementation of all of the recommendations from Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that were handed down more than 25 years ago.

“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

“You don’t need an inquiry to reinstate the millions of funding cut from Aboriginal legal services. Restoring that funding must be a priority.

“In NSW there is a package of legislative reforms that could be immediately implemented that would significantly reduce Aboriginal imprisonment rates. This starts with reforming aggressive bail laws and winding back a raft of discretionary police powers, from move on directions to consorting orders.

“This is a national crisis. Pushing it off to yet another inquiry and to a body that does not have Royal Commission powers is a far from adequate response.” Mr Shoebridge said.

With the passing of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, the Baird Government has failed to put an end to the long multi-million dollar disaster that is the Ombudsman’s investigation into Operation Prospect.

While the bill is a welcome step forward in establishing a single, well-resourced police oversight body and improving police accountability, a number of key Greens amendments were voted down by the Upper House.

The Greens and Shooters and Fishers were the only parties to support an amendment to terminate the Operation Prospect inquiry and prohibit the publication of any report or evidence gathered in this extremely flawed and unfair investigation.

With the NSW Crime Commission and others seeking an injunction of the Operation Prospect report being published due to concerns of gross procedural unfairness, millions more dollars of taxpayers money is now certain to be tied up in the courts in this long running scandal, together with ongoing dysfunction and division in NSW crime fighting agencies.

Greens MP Justice and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“The Greens have been saying for years that we need a single, well-resourced police oversight body and welcome the establishment of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission.

“This is a crucial step forward in improving police accountability, but it is deeply disappointing to see that the failed practice of police investigating police will still be allowed to continue in critical incidences.

“It is a case of one step forward, one step back, with a the Baird government baulking at the most important reform that would remove the conflict of interest when police officers investigate themselves.

“This was also a missed opportunity for Parliament to fix the mistakes of the past and put an end to the Ombudsman’s report into the the disgraceful, and illegal, secret police bugging scandal.

“Operation Prospect has been a four year long multi-million dollar disaster that has torn at the integrity of some of the best and brightest police in NSW.

“After four long years Operation Prospect has already been overseen by two Ombudsmen, been the subject of two Parliamentary Inquiries, cost more than $10 million and interrogated reams of documents and scores of witnesses.

“The Ombudsman’s secret and behind-closed-doors investigation has been more concerned with targeting whistleblowers rather than producing accountability for the initial illegal bugging.

“By failing to act the Baird government has given the green light to years of division, distrust and litigation within NSW crime fighting agencies.

“Parliament created this monster and Parliament and has missed its opportunity kill it off before it causes any more damage.” Mr Shoebridge said.

This speech was delivered on 08.11.2016 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.

This is one of these moments when we are looking into the future of not just the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission but also potential changes that have been proposed to ICAC and other oversight bodies. A series of bodies in New South Wales effectively have royal commission powers. Each and every one of them is able to hold hearings either in public or in private depending upon the views of the officer or officers in charge of those commissions. The bill as originally drafted proposed that a public hearing could only be held if there was unanimity amongst the three commissioners. As I think the Government now acknowledges, that potentially made for an unworkable situation. If one commissioner had a philosophical view that there should never be public hearings the commission would never come to a decision. There would potentially be a logjam.

One would hope that wherever possible the three commissioners would be a united team, but there is also a place for a dissenting voice amongst the commissioners that might challenge the majority and say, “Is this really the place for a public hearing?” A commissioner may have that philosophical view and be more willing to challenge it, which would lead to those questions being tested amongst the three commissioners. However, we would not want that minority position to nullify the views of the majority, meaning there could never be public hearings. This amendment will not only significantly improve the day-to-day operation of the commission by facilitating some robust exchange between the commissioners and potentially small amounts of disagreement; it will also allow for a ready mechanism for the question to be determined by majority and ensure that there will be some public hearings.

I know there has been some concern about public hearings at the Independent Commission Against Corruption and that the Police Association has raised concerns about previous public hearings at the Police Integrity Commission. Some of those concerns are valid. A practice developed at different points for the gotcha moment, perhaps just before morning tea. There would then be what they described as feeding the chooks, which was the playing of what were once CDs of undercover footage and are now USB sticks of undercover footage. That would dominate the play in the media for the day. The evidence of the officer or person being cross-examined in the afternoon or following day that might put a totally different colour on it would get washed out by the great gotcha moment of the morning. That type of concern about procedural fairness is valid. The way we address it is by having counsel assisting, who comply with the bar rules that expressly say that most of the provisions of the rules apply to commissions of inquiry as much as they apply to court matters.

We have commissioners to ensure that their extraordinary powers do not get abused and that people are not treated with gross unfairness. We are never going to have, nor do we want to have, the same levels of procedural fairness that apply in a royal commission applying in a court because there is the essential matter of catching people out in public and identifying matters of substantial misconduct in public. Indeed, that public shaming and exposure has an essential role to play. Traditionally in New South Wales, because our corruption laws are so woeful, often it is only the public shaming that delivers change. We need public hearings. This amendment will mean that we will be more likely to get public hearings but there are still more checks and balances. It is a good amendment and The Greens support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment. I am a member of the oversight committee of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. That committee has had a lengthy discussion and made the same recommendation. This amendment will bring consistency to the commissions operating in this State.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Lynda Voltz has moved Opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet C2016-080B. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIR: We will now move to The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2016-100A.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Sorry, was that 100A or 104A?

The CHAIR: It is C2016-100A. It relates to an amendment on page 28 of the bill. We are trying to move through in order as best we can.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1 to 9 on sheet C2016-100A in globo:

No. 1 Investigation of police misconduct matters

Page 28, clause 44 (9), line 38. Omit “Except as provided by section 113 (6), the Commissioner must”. Insert instead “The Commissioner may”.

No. 2 Investigation of critical incidents by Commission

Page 32, clause 51 (1), line 18. Insert at the end of the line:

, or

(f) in the case of a critical incident, if the Commission decides that it is in the public interest that it investigates the incident or investigate s it concurrently with an investigation being carried out by the NSW Police Force.

No. 3 Investigation of critical incidents by Commission

Page 32, clause 51. Insert after line 45:

(6) The Commission may decide to investigate a critical incident despite sec tion 44 (9).

(7) If the Commission decides to investigate a critical incident, the Commission:

(a) must notify the Commissioner of Police of its decision to investigate the incident; and

(b) may require the Commissioner of Police to postpone any investigat ion of the incident by the NSW Police Force until the Commission advises that the NSW Police Force may proceed with its investigation.

No. 4 Declaration of critical incident

Page 57, clause 111 (1), line 18. Omit “may”. Insert instead “must”.

No. 5 Declara tion of critical incident

Page 57, clause 111 (2), line 27. Omit “may”. Insert instead “must”.

No. 6 Investigation of police misconduct matters

Page 58, clause 113 (6), line 30. Omit “despite section 44 (9)”.

No. 7 Investigation of critical incidents by Co mmission

Page 58, clause 114, line 38. Insert “ or conduct own investigation ” after “ investigation “.

No. 8 Investigation of critical incidents by Commission

Page 58, clause 114. Insert after line 40:

(2) The Commission may also, if it believes that it is appropriate to do so because of the circumstances of the case or the seriousness of the issues involved:

(a) conduct its own investigation of a critical incident; or

(b) take over an investigation by the NSW Police Force of a critical incident.

No. 9 Monit oring conduct of critical incident investigations

Page 59, clause 114 (3) (c), lines 8 and 9. Omit “with the consent of the person being interviewed and the senior critical incident investigator,”.

The Greens have a longstanding record in saying that when it comes to serious misconduct police should not be investigating police. The inherent conflict of interest one gets when one police officer investigates the actions of another police officer is plain for the general public to see. Indeed, it has been plain to the many complainants who have approached my office over the past five and a bit years concerned about the way that police investigations of police have an extraordinary tendency to dismiss the seriousness of complaints and to dismiss complaints from the public, but they also do not give fairness to many police. Many police do not feel that one section of police investigating them will give them any kind of procedural fairness. For that reason The Greens believe, particularly in critical incidents—those incidents involving death or serious injury of either a member of the police force or a member of the public in the course of police operations—we can no longer have police investigating police. This inevitable conflict of interest was highlighted in the Lindt siege inquiry.

To illustrate the importance of these amendments, one only has to consider the extremely unenviable situation of the police investigators sent in to investigate the actions of police after the Lindt tragedy. It was declared a critical incident by the Commissioner of Police, so a number of police at inspector level and below were tasked with investigating what went right and what went wrong in the Lindt siege inquiry. Two of the key players in the Lindt siege inquiry were Deputy Commissioner Burn and Commissioner Scipione. It is hard to imagine a more career-limiting moment than one when an inspector of police trots up to the Commissioner’s office and says, “I would like to see your phone. Please show me your text messages. I want to run through your emails to find out exactly where you were, when you were there, what directions you made and what you said about the operational activities.”

There was an official notation in the police records about the Police Commissioner making a determination about whether or not there would be intervention on the night. We only know that because it came out belatedly in the course of a coronial investigation, because the commissioner was never put on the spot by the investigators to give a statement about what happened. We now know that Deputy Commissioner Burn deleted a whole series of her text messages. She says they were not related to the Lindt siege inquiry, but we will never know because they were deleted by the deputy commissioner before she was required to go under oath in the coronial investigation.

I do not blame the junior officers who were put in the invidious situation of having to interrogate deputy commissioners and the Commissioner of Police to find out exactly what went wrong. They were in an impossible situation: They could not investigate that, given the chain of command and the nature of the police. Why would we allow that kind of conflict of interest to be at the heart of this bill? While there are good things about this bill, which establishes a single police oversight body, it expressly says that the new Law Enforcement Conduct Commission [LECC] cannot investigate police critical incidents and must postpone the investigation of any critical incident until after the police have finished. That may be months; it may be years. There is no time limit on it. This bill effectively says that this brand-new police oversight body, which we hope will start with a fresh culture, a belief in procedural fairness and a view that it will fix systemic problems in the NSW Police Force and address any substantial issue of corruption, cannot investigate the most serious incidents and has to sit on its hands.

If a member of the public is shot by a police officer, one would think that the best body to investigate that would be the brand-new, shiny, expensive Law Enforcement Conduct Commission—but this bill says it cannot investigate a police critical incident, which must be investigated by Professional Standards Command. We have police investigating police—and the bill does not put that at the discretion of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission but expressly statutorily prohibits the LECC from investigating in those circumstances. Why would we put that fundamental flaw at the heart of what is otherwise a good bill?

Taken together The Greens amendments remedy that core defect in the bill, and I could go through them one after the other, explaining how they remedy that core defect in the bill. The amendments allow the Law Enforcement Conduct Commissioner, if the Law Enforcement Conduct Commissioner believes it is appropriate, to undertake an investigation notwithstanding that there is an outstanding police critical incident investigation, and the amendments allow the LECC to take over a police critical incident investigation, which I hope would be the option that it would most readily exercise. We want to get away from the situation where we have the police doing one thing over here and the oversight bodies doing another thing over there. That has been a recipe for disaster for years in New South Wales.

These amendments would give the LECC the power to take over a police critical incident investigation where it thought it was appropriate. We should end the culture of police investigating police. It is not just a cultural thing. No-one can blame the police for operating within the laws that have been given to them by the Parliament. We need to fix the structural conflict of interest, particularly when it comes to critical incidents where someone has been shot, killed, seriously wounded or injured. That is when we have to say, “Enough is enough: No longer do we have police investigating police. Let’s have our new, shiny, expensive Law Enforcement Conduct Commission do its job and investigate the most critical incidents in New South Wales.” I commend the amendments to the House.

This speech was delivered on 17.11.2016 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the original contribution here.

On 16 January 1988 in the early hours of the morning, a 17‑year‑old Aboriginal boy, Mark Anthony Haines, was found dead on the train tracks outside Tamworth. It had been pouring with rain that night. At all times Mark’s death has been treated as suspicious. The circumstances and manner of his death, however, have not been determined despite two coronial inquests, each of which returned open findings. The forensic and police accounts given at the inquests raise far more questions than they answer.

Mark was last seen saying goodbye to his girlfriend at approximately 3.30 a.m. that morning. Sometime after 3.30 a.m. a train driver travelling north from Werris Creek to Tamworth thought he had struck a sheep. He resolved to closely check the tracks when he returned over the same tracks heading south about an hour later. When he did, he saw a body lying prone between the tracks and called for assistance from the Tamworth station assistant. When the station assistant and paramedics arrived they found Mark’s body lying between the tracks with his head to the south, his feet to the north and, remarkably, his head resting upon a towel.

The working theory from police that was delivered at two coronial inquests was that Mark had travelled in a stolen car, which had crashed and turned over approximately 1.5 kilometres from where his body was found. Then in the pouring rain on a dark night he had walked away from Tamworth, climbed up a steep embankment and travelled along 1.5 kilometres of railway line, including over a narrow, dangerous bridge, carrying stolen goods. Mark was then thought to have laid down between the tracks and waited until the train arrived when he raised his head and was struck by the train.

The forensic evidence at the coronial inquests made it clear that Mark died from traumatic head injury and he had suffered substantial blood loss. The remarkable prospect from the forensic investigation was that Mark had tumbled under the train and ended up with his head resting on the towel after being struck by the train. Despite his substantial blood loss, when the paramedics removed Mark’s body and the towel they saw a stain of blood approximately only the size of a 50 cent coin under the towel. Despite it raining heavily that night, Mark’s shoes had no mud on them. Despite there being a significant number of objects nearby, many of them were collected by the family the following day and taken to police. None of the objects were fingerprinted. The stolen car 1.5 kilometres from Mark’s body was also not fingerprinted.

The investigation that was carried out by the Oxley Local Area Command could at best be described as substandard. Mark’s family continues to be critical of both the extent and the quality of the investigation. The working theory that was presented by police at the coronial inquiries is clearly utterly untenable. Mark’s parents and many of his family members have since passed away. One of his last remaining relatives, Uncle Don Craigie, a Gomeroi elder, has been seeking answers since 1988. He gave that commitment to Mark’s parents before they died. I met with Uncle Don in Tamworth last month. He still has a fire in his belly and is demanding justice for Mark. His commitment has been vitally important because without him Mark’s death may well have been forgotten entirely. As Uncle Don said, “It is sad but no-one cared about a dead Aboriginal teenage boy in Tamworth in the late 80s.”

Thankfully, fresh information continues to come to light. In 2001 fresh witnesses came forward giving evidence of a group of people being seen around the crashed car earlier that fateful morning, but nothing more was done by police. In April this year another witness contacted Crime Stoppers. Her details were provided to the Oxley Local Area Command. It was not the first time she had contacted police. To date, police have still not taken a statement from her. That witness and her daughter would be in a position to tell police that her own son had tragically taken his life a little over six months after Mark died. Crucially, he told his family he had driven the stolen car on the night of Mark’s death. He also left three notes before he died. One has since been destroyed but the other two are potentially still able to be obtained, at least if one looks. To find out this detail, however, it would be essential that police treat Mark’s death with the seriousness it deserves and, at the very least, interview the witnesses in person and take formal statements. It is hard to understand why that has not already happened.

Today I call on the NSW Police Force to recognise that the investigative efforts of the local area command have to date been inadequate. The case remains open, but for the family and community to have faith in the police investigation there needs to be a break with the past. For this reason I am today writing to the NSW Police Commissioner seeking to have the investigation into Mark’s death transferred to the homicide squad. A lot has changed in policing since 1988—I recognise that—but Mark’s family is still living with the failures of the past. Uncle Don Craigie will not rest till justice is done, and nor should any of us.

The Greens usually argue for transparency and making all information publicly available – so why don’t we think the Operation Prospect/police bugging report should be released?

Prospect is a more than 4 year inquiry into a now 18 year old police bugging scandal – it has so far cost more than $10 million and interrogated scores of witnesses in secretive closed hearings.

The inquiry has not only failed to afford the police and journalists involved procedural fairness, but has had a troubling focus on targeting whistleblowers rather than accountability for the initial illegal bugging. We continue to oppose its release.

The NSW Ombudsman’s office has today released their long overdue $10 million report into illegal police bugging. The report has found repeated and systemic illegal bugging by NSW police officers and the Crime Commission. These failures must be addressed by Parliament.

Astoundingly no criminal charges are recommended for the illegal bugging, despite dozens of confirmed cases where the law had been seriously breached to obtain secret police surveillance.

However those officers who disclosed documents to seek justice for the illegal bugging, after more than a decade of seeking internal accountability, may face prosecution. It is deeply troubling that Deputy Commissioner Kaldas has seen his reputation damaged because he failed to tell the inquiry a confidential source for key documents.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“What we see from the report is a system of secret police bugging and wiretaps that has operated largely outside the law.

“Targets were not properly identified, innocent people had their phones and conversations bugged and no one did anything about it.

“Despite literally dozens of serious legal breaches being identified none of the officers who engaged in this conduct are likely to face criminal prosecution.

“One of the primary reasons for the lack of accountability is the gross delay in delivering this report that was dealing with conduct that happened between 1999 and 2002.

“It is an act of political bastardry that sees the one officer, Nick Kaldas, who fought hardest to get to the truth about the illegal bugging, facing an adverse finding because he refused to give up a confidential source.

“The delivery of this report will cause more instability in the NSW Police force, with adverse findings being directed against current Deputy Commissioner Burn and a series of other serving officers.

“This ongoing division in the NSW Police might be justified if there was a serious likelihood of people being held criminally accountable for the illegal bugging, but that is not what this report is recommending.

“We’ve long been critical of the conduct of this investigation, and the closed door nature of the hearings that seemed little to do with respecting privacy and unreasonably focussed on the whistleblowers.
“There is no secret why the NSW government has tried to sweep this conduct under the carpet for so long. This report opens the state of NSW up to a wave of litigation from people who had their privacy illegally breached.

“The clearest recommendation to actually fix this mess is for a Public Interest Monitor to be appointed to review and test fresh surveillance applications. This needs to be legislated as soon as parliament returns in 2017,” Mr Shoebridge said.

It’s been a huge year for Sniff Off, the NSW Greens campaign against the use of drug dogs at bars, festivals, and public transport! We’ve put out hundreds of updates on drug dog locations throughout NSW, grown from 8,000 to over 25,000 likes on Facebook, and handed out thousands of flyers at festivals, train stations and bars.

Let’s take a look at some of the year’s highlights:

In March, Greens Member for Newtown Jenny Leong introduced a bill to repeal the use of NSW drug detection dogs without a warrant. Check out her powerful speech here.

We caught some naughty police officers lying about drug dog locations on our Sniff Off page. It was later revealed that two officers were on duty at the time, and all three had been involved in drug dog operations. Lying to the public whilst on the clock, tsk tsk.

March also saw a lowlight – police officers engaging in racist, sexist harassment of Jenny Leong after she dared to criticise the drug dog program. The Police Integrity Commission subsequently recommended laying charges against officers involved.

For the second year in a row, Sniff Off had a presence it Nimbin’s MardiGrass Cannabis legalisation festival in late April/May. We had a great response from the locals, activists and tourists. Greens MP David Shoebridge spoke to a packed town hall about the flaws in NSW’s roadside drug testing regime, and Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi spoke about her trip to the United States and cannabis legalisation.

Later in May we launched our Twitter account to accompany our Facebook drug dog alerts.

At the end of May, we revealed figures obtained in Parliament by David Shoebridge, showing that $66 million has been wasted on the drug dog program since 2010.

In September, we revealed the latest figures on drug dog searches obtained through our freedom of information request – showing a reduction in searches since the launch of Sniff Off. Unfortunately the dogs are still getting it wrong 68% of the time.

Later that month data analysis by the Greens was released confirming what was always obvious – poor and Aboriginal communities are disproportionately targeted by drug dog operations.

In November Sniff off volunteers handed out thousands of flyers at Harbourlife and The Plot. Our flyers include information on why the drug dog program doesn’t work and tips on interacting with police. This year they’ve been a hit at Laneway, Knockout, Yours and Owls, Listen Out, Splendour in the Grass, Reclaim the Streets, Sydney Mardi Gras and other festivals! Shoot us an email at david.shoebridge@parliament.nsw.gov.au if you’re interested in volunteering in the future with Sniff Off!

It’s been a big year, but bigger things are coming in 2017! Keep an eye out for a huge announcement soon…

As the year draws to a close we can look back on some of the campaigning achievements of 2016. It has not been an easy year for progressive politics around the world, but here in NSW we’ve had some results worth celebrating.

We have campaigned strongly against forced council amalgamations, resulting in many councils being saved.

Our work secured inquiries into school planning in Sydney, the treatment of kids with special needs in schools and the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum. The work of the inquiry into child protection is also ongoing.

Continued success with “Sniff Off” resulting in lower numbers of drug dog searches, and almost 25,000 people part of the campaign.

We stood with you to defend the right to protect in the face of the Baird Government’s anti-protest laws. We promise to stand beside you if they ever try to use these laws to break up a peaceful protest.

Our campaign for sensible gun control continues, with a blow against the gun lobby seeing the Adler A110 classed as a category D weapon. We also undertook an eye-opening (slightly terrifying) trip to the US to learn from the experience there.

We successfully moved our Steel Bill through the NSW upper house, sending a strong message of support for local jobs and Australian-made steel. We also introduced bills to close loopholes in the Custody Notification Service for Aboriginal people in custody, and a bill to ban citizens of NSW from travelling overseas to receive unethically sourced organs.

Campaigns on justice for victims, Aboriginal child removals, evidence-free roadside drug testing, workers compensation, police psychological injuries, protecting and repatriating Aboriginal heritage and artefacts, Crown Lands, education in prisons, and more are ongoing.

There’s still more to do, and we can’t do it without you. Whether it’s saving Sydney’s trees, protecting threatened species, or standing up for vulnerable people – we do it as part of a strong and vibrant community. Thank you.

Wishing you a happy and relaxing holiday season.

This is our 2016 end of year message – if you sign up you can receive this and similar messages directly to your inbox.

With fresh evidence coming to light in the last 12 months regarding the circumstances of Mark’s death, David has been calling for the case to handed over to the State Crime Command to give Mark’s family the best possible chance at justice.

Handing this review over to the State Crime Command is an important and necessary step in recognising that the investigative efforts of the local area command have to date been inadequate. Mark’s family deserves answers and they deserve justice, this review brings them one step closer to achieving that.

As reported by ABC:

A review of the investigation into the death of an Aboriginal teenager in Tamworth almost 30 years ago will be conducted by the State Crime Command’s Homicide Squad.

The body of Mark Haines, 17, was found near railway tracks outside the town 29 years ago today.

More than a dozen family members of the teen today protested outside Tamworth police station, renewing their calls for the death to be investigated again.

Mark’s uncle Don Craigie said the family needed to know what had happened to Mark.

“[I] plead to the community and the public to come forward if you got any information. I still ask that today,” Mr Craigie said.

“Please come forward and let us rest. We’re tired. We need closure.”

Greens MP leads lobbying efforts

Mr Shoebridge last year wrote to NSW Police commissioner Andrew Scipione, requesting the case be re-investigated by the State Crime Command’s Homicide Squad, instead of local police.

With the announcement that NSW Police Commissioner Scipione will be ending his role in April, the Greens acknowledge Commissioner Scipione’s service and wish him well.

The NSW Police Force is well overdue for fresh leadership, with infighting and internal disputes amongst senior police overshadowing the broader work of frontline police for too long.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“The Greens acknowledge Commissioner Scipione’s service and wish him well in his retirement.

“It is well past the time for fresh leadership in the force.

“In recent years the NSW Police Force has been treading water and significant internal disputes have remained unresolved under Commissioner Scipione’s leadership.

“Any new Commissioner will have significant challenges in stabilising the leadership team and restoring confidence to frontline police.

“Many observers and a good number of officers in the NSW Police Force have been critical of the lack of reforms in recent years.

“The failure to properly reform and manage the NSW Police Force was highlighted by the mess of Operation Prospect, where a twenty year long dispute was ignored, hidden and moved from agency to agency with no one having the courage to resolve it.

“When it comes to Operation Prospect Commissioner Scipione’s leadership will be remembered primarily for what it didn’t do. That inaction was a central reason for ongoing instability at the highest level of the NSW Police Force.

“We give credit to Commissioner Scipione for supporting the establishment of a single police oversight body. Bedding down this reform so that it works for both the public and the police will be a crucial responsibility for the new Commissioner.

“In order for the NSW Police to achieve its full potential it requires consistent and strong leadership, that has been absent in recent years.

”For too long infighting and internal disputes amongst senior police has been allowed to overshadow the work of frontline police. A fresh Police Commissioner is a chance to fix this

“Commissioner Scipione’s contract extension was always a stop gap measure and it came at the cost of a $100,000 per annum salary increase to NSW taxpayers.

“It is remarkable that despite the government knowing a replacement was needed for over two years, cabinet has been unable to agree on Commissioner Scipione’s replacement .” Mr Shoebridge said.

The Greens wish new Police Commissioner Mick Fuller well in his new role leading the NSW Police Force.

The NSW Police Force is well overdue for fresh leadership, with poor succession planning by the Coalition as well as  infighting and internal disputes amongst senior police overshadowing the broader work of frontline police for too long.

Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“The new Commissioner’s immediate focus must be on reducing the crippling amount of police resources spent on the failing war on drugs, the lack of police accountability and the need to rebuild trust with marginal groups in society.

“The appointment of a new Police Commissioner has been dreadfully handled by the Coalition to date, with the process bungled over three years by Premiers O’Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian.

“Years of uncertainty and indecision has impacted on the morale and focus of the NSW Police and there has been poor succession planning both internally by outgoing Commissioner Scipione and externally by the NSW cabinet.

“Commissioner Fuller will face significant challenges in stabilising the leadership team and restoring confidence to frontline police.

“It is time now for a fresh direction at the top, personal responsibility for more focused operational policing in partnership with multicultural NSW.” Mr Shoebridge said.

Greens NSW Spokesperson on Sexuality and Gender Identity Jenny Leong:

“Last year the NSW Parliament united across party lines to apologise to the 78ers, the brave people who stood up for LGBTI rights and equality – and were brutally attacked by NSW Police for doing so.”

“Disappointingly, outgoing NSW Police Commissioner Scipione failed to join the apology to those participants of the first Mardi Gras.

“We are calling on the incoming Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to show leadership and address the wrongs of the past when it comes to the unacceptable treatment of the LGBTI community by police, by making an apology.” Ms Leong said.

The Minister for Police Troy Grant has today announced an aggressive, evidence-free package of reforms with the apparent dual purpose of seeing sex offenders face harsher penalties while also reducing the dramatic increases in the prison population.

The package allocates more than $200 million dollars which will fund 200 extra staff in Community Corrections and 19 community service work buses. This is a small drop in the ocean compared to the existing $3.8 billion allocated to building new prisons required as a result of the increasing prison population. No additional funding has been allocated for crime reduction measures or to improve rehabilitation within prisons.

Though the announcement was today the legislation to enact the reforms is unlikely to come before the Parliament until end 2017.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“The “Tougher Smarter Safer” package seems designed to deliver a three word slogan, rather than to provide a comprehensive plan for actually improving community safety.

“The abolition of suspended sentences is also concerning and further removes the ability of the court to make appropriate findings based on all the facts in a case.

“No matter his personal view, the kind of aggressive language of retribution from the Police Minister we saw in his press conference should have little place in our political system in NSW.

“While Minister has indicated that chemical castration will currently be optional, we note that this is a slippery slope, and will be closely examining the legislation to see how voluntary this is.

“Make no mistake, sex offending is extremely serious – but victims are best supported by sensitive and responsive policing with adequate resources in place to ensure timely and effective investigation and prosecution. Minor notification changes about offenders are not enough.

“Victims of sex offences have long called on the NSW Police to commit the police to responding better to victims and provide training to officers on how to process offences from interview to court verdict in ways that are empowering for victims,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Over the past year there has been a 320 percent increase the number of people charged with drug driving offences in NSW, with young people and residents of low-income areas making up the bulk of the arrests, according to new data released by the state’s crime statistics agency.

As reported by Junkee, the data from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) shows that 9,800 people faced drug driving charges in NSW last year, compared to just 2,300 the year before. The BOCSAR report also acknowledges that “it seems likely that the increase in charges is a reflection of increased law enforcement activity rather than an increase in actual drug driving.”

This means that the huge increase in arrests isn’t actually the result of more people taking drugs and driving, but instead it’s the result of a significantly ramped up police effort to drug test drivers. So who are the cops testing?

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“It beggars belief that people living on the Northern Rivers, around Richmond and Tweed, are being convicted of drug driving at 46 times the rate than residents on Sydney’s North Shore.

“Meanwhile residents in South West Sydney are being convicted of drug driving at 12 times the rate of residents in Sydney’s eastern Suburbs.

“These extraordinary discrepancies can’t be explained by differences in the level of drug driving.

“There is no question that the police are targeting drug driving tests against those parts of the state that are less wealthy. It’s more class warfare from the Coalition government.

“South-West Sydney and the regions are facing a surge in drug driving convictions while residents in areas of privilege are getting a free ride.

“This confirms why the Greens are so opposed to the flawed roadside drug testing regime. It targets the poor, doesn’t test for impairment and fails to pick up cocaine and benzos.

“Mobile drug testing isn’t about road safety, it’s just another part of the failing war on drugs being fought by police against people without money or influence,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Implementing The NSW Coroner’s recommendations in relation to the Lindt Café Siege is important and necessary step in moving forward but cannot come at the expense of our civil liberties.

The Coalition’s announcement to tighten parole and give police “shoot to kill” powers  will not make us safer and there is little evidence to suggest these changes would have saved lives during the tragic Lindt siege.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“We acknowledge the bravery of the many police who were involved in the siege. Implementing the Coroner’s recommendations is important and necessary step in moving forward.

“But the government’s decision to conflate their response to the Coroner’s report with an announcement of additional police powers is wrong. The Coalition is pushing NSW further and further towards a police state.

“There is little evidence to suggest that giving police “shoot to kill” powers would have saved lives during the Lindt siege.

“If there is anything that we should learn from the Lindt siege it is that there is an overwhelming need within the police for good processes, timely information and quality training.

“Knee jerk and unthinking parole laws will not make us safer. Prison authorities need parole options to encourage rehabilitation and good conduct.” Mr Shoebridge said.

The Coalition’s plan to rush new shoot-to-kill police powers through Parliament today will not make us safer and instead pushes NSW closer to a police state.

It carries on a trend of laws that empower police including anti-protest, move-on and consorting laws that together endanger our civil liberties.

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“Police already have the right to use reasonable force to save a life, so there is no reason to give police additional shoot-to-kill powers.

“Laws that empower police to kill citizens are a fundamental threat to our civil liberties, so it is remarkable that these laws are being rushed through Parliament in less than a day.

“This is not a recommendation of the Coroner, who made it clear that the NSW Police already have appropriate powers.

“Shoot-to-kill powers will not make us safer, and there is no evidence it would have saved any lives during the Lindt siege.

“The key lesson from the Lindt siege it is that there is an overwhelming need within the police for good processes, timely information and quality training.

“We have serious concerns that once a terrorism declaration is made, these shoot to kill powers can be used not just against those engaged in terrorism activities, but anyone at the location.

“The law contains no independent oversight of the Police Commissioner’s decision to trigger the shoot-to-kill powers.

“The change to parole will keep people in jail who have no history or connection with terrorism or to terrorist organisations.

“These parole changes go well beyond people who are accused of terrorism or support terror organisations but extend to their friends, families and workmates.

“We live in one of the safest, most open and multicultural societies in the world and we mustn’t allow fear to divide us.” Mr Shoebridge said.

We’ve spoken to many emergency service workers who want to put a submission into the current bullying inquiry, but have concerns about how making a submission might impact on their employment, and specifically that they have worries that making a submission may lead to them being bullied.

The committee understands these concerns, and has a number of measures in place including the ability to make confidential or anonymous submissions and the ability to hold private hearings.

The secretariat has produced a fact sheet detailing some of this. They can also be contacted directly is you have further questions:

Submissions are due by the 23 July 2017. 

Download as a PDF: Guidelinesforsubmissionauthors-FINAL

It has been a busy year in NSW Parliament, and once again budget estimates are almost upon us.

Hearings will be from Thursday 31 August to Friday 8 September 2017. We’d love to hear your thoughts about issues to raise and potential questions to ask.

Budget Estimates happen once a year and are one of the only opportunities for Greens MPs to ask direct questions of NSW Government Ministers and senior government bureaucrats on policy, budget decisions or anything else more broadly relating to their portfolios.

I’ll be asking questions in the following portfolio areas:

• Attorney General and Justice
• Aboriginal Justice
• Child protection
• Compensation – including workers compensation, motor accidents, and dust diseases
• Corrective Services (including juvenile justice)
• Crown Lands
• Firearms/Gun control
• Heritage (including Aboriginal heritage)
• Industrial relations
• Local Government
• Newcastle, the Hunter and the Central Coast
• Planning
• Police
• Emergency Services

The information we get from these hearings is crucial for holding the Coalition Government to account. Take a look at just some of the questions we asked last year here.

Please send through any suggested questions to kym.chapple@parliament.nsw.gov.au as soon as possible, but preferably by 18 August. We are also available to discuss on 9230 3030 of course.

We’ll continue to keep you updated on the work we do campaigning for open, accountable and transparent decisions from this government.

The Liberal National government has used National Homeless Week to announce legal changes to empower the police to evict the homeless, and some of the most disadvantaged in our communities, from public land in the City of Sydney.

The Greens believe that having access to a safe and permanent home is a fundamental human right. The parliament has a responsibility not to enact laws to facilitate harassment of homeless people, but to help them by providing permanent housing and to ensure those at risk of homelessness get the support they need.

The Orwellian ‘Sydney Public Reserves Public Safety Bill ‘was introduced to Parliament today, shortly after Greens Member for Newtown and Homelessness Spokesperson Jenny Leong was removed from the chamber for calling out the spin being presented by the FACs Minister.

Greens Member for Newtown and Homelessness Spokesperson Jenny Leong said:

“Today’s announcement will do nothing to address the issue of homelessness or provide permanent housing for the homeless community at Martin Place.

“While this Liberal National government may be doing everything they can to avoid the reality faced by so many people who are homeless in our community, we will continue to pressure the government to act and implement real solutions.

“There’s a tried and tested solution to addressing homelessness and that is using the Housing First model – an approach which provides permanent housing to those who are homeless as a priority.

“People are sleeping in tents in Martin Place because the Premier and her Liberal National government have failed to provide proper support services or enough public and social housing. No one else is to blame but them.” Ms Leong said.

Greens NSW MP and Spokesperson for Crown Lands David Shoebridge said:

“What is really offensive is that the Premier’s first answer to a social problem is more police powers.

“It’s National Homelessness Week and the Liberal National government plans to empower the police to evict the homeless from public land in the City of Sydney.

“Let’s be clear once these laws are in, they can be used not just to remove homeless people from the street, but could be targeted at anyone they want to see removed from a public place.

“Crown Land laws exist to ensure that that public land is properly managed for the public benefit, not to evict homeless people sleeping rough in the city because it makes the Premier ‘uncomfortable.” Mr Shoebridge said.

Today in National Homelessness Week the Liberal National government rushed through legislation that will allow police to remove the homeless people from Martin Place, seize and destroy their belongings and break up non-“authorised” protests within the CBD.

This is a heartless response from a heartless government that would rather see homeless people disappear than take action. The Greens condemn the Liberal National government’s actions.

Greens Member for Newtown and Homelessness Spokesperson Jenny Leong said:

“Today in National Homelessness Week the Liberal National government rushed through legislation that will allow police to remove homeless people from Martin Place.

“Instead of passing legislation to increase public and social housing so these people have a permanent place to live, laws have been passed to just move the problem out of sight.

“These laws are an attempt by the Government to provide cover for what will be a potentially violent and aggressive act towards homeless people in Martin Place, that is, removing them from the space that has become their temporary home.

“We have a housing crisis in NSW and the obvious solution is to invest more money in social, public and affordable housing, instead NSW Parliament has rushed through a shameful set of laws.” Ms Leong said.

Greens NSW MP and Spokesperson for Crown Lands David Shoebridge said:

“What is really offensive is that the Premier’s first answer to homelessness is more police powers.

“This is a new low from the Liberal National government, rather than providing permanent housing, they are giving police sweeping new powers to arrest the homeless and to seize and destroy their belongings.

“These laws extend well beyond dealing with homelessness, they can and will be used to break up protests and other peaceful occupations in the CBD.

“This is a heartless and shameful government that continues to move us closer and closer to a police state.” Mr Shoebridge said.

We were delighted with the response to our first community forum in Byron talking about Drugs, Driving and Policing – and specifically how changes in policing practice were heavily targeting the region.

David presented the latest data obtained from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which show a disproportionate focus on the Tweed/Byron region, despite no evidence provided that there is a greater risk from drug driving in the region.

He also spoke about the latest data obtained by our office that shows the level of use of police Drug Dogs in the area.

A copy of the slides that David used for his presentation can be downloaded in PDF format here: Mobile Drug Testing and Drug Dogs

Greens Member for Ballina Tamara Smith welcomed attendees to the event, and reiterated her strong commitment for changing to laws based on impairment and risk.

Aidan Ricketts, author of activists handbook and lecturer at Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice spoke about the criminal justice implications of the drug driving and drug dog schemes.

We also heard from local lawyer Aniko Papp who talked about how police targeting cannabis is seeing drug use switch to ice with awful outcomes.

Thank you to all of those who attended and asked such insightful questions, we’re looking forward to continuing to work on this important issue.