Legislative Council
4 June 1998
POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY - RE N.C.A BOMBING
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before
asking the Attorney-General in his various roles a question relating to
the Police Complaints Authority.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: On 26 February the Attorney announced
a review into the general operations, systems and processes of the Police
Complaints Authority and said he hoped the review would be complete within
two months. It is now three months since that announcement was made and,
to my knowledge, there is no sign yet of that review's completion. That
may not be of undue concern, except that it is a matter of public concern
that the review is allegedly hampered by the terms of reference handed
to former Judge Iris Stevens. Specifically, she is not permitted to recommend
changes to the Police Complaints and Disci-plinary Proceedings Act 1985
nor investigate any of the cases dealt with by the PCA or the Police Internal
Investigations Branch. However, Mrs Stevens is required to determine how
well the PCA is performing under its Act. I repeat what is appearing to
be an anomaly to those who are looking closely at this: she is asked to
determine how well the PCA is performing but she cannot look at specific
cases.Having done that, she is not able to make any recommendations as
to how the Act may be improved.
The Hon. A.J. Redford: That's comment.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: That is smartly picked up. The case I
raised in this Chamber on 11 December related to the Police Complaints
Authority and was in fact an example of allegations of inadequate and inefficient
inquiry into the NCA bombing at the Adelaide office of the NCA. After my
question the Attorney provided a reply on 17 February. I will not go through
the actual details of that case but members will recall that there is a
still serving senior South Australian Chief Inspector whose statement about
what he saw and his involvement in the event, making him potentially a
key witness in the trial, was challenged by three people who were actually
in the vicinity of the explosion.
In his reply the Minister defended the PCA investigation, stating
that the matters at issue were insignificant and that it was not necessary
for the authority to interview these two witnesses who could verify the
complaint because they had previously given statements. However, the facts
that were overlooked in this case and why the PCA should be brought to
book to answer them are: those two witnesses had given statements but that
was prior to the Chief Inspector's statement having been made, which was
a week later, and they were never reapproached for their opinion and the
corroboration of the detail in that allegedly incorrect state-ment.
The PCA interviewed seven senior officers, none of whom was involved
in the incident or anywhere near it at the time of the incident. The Chief
Inspector was interviewed at his NCA office for the purpose of the PCA
investigation. One of the witnesses who was at the scene of the explosion
had an office within a few metres of the Chief Inspector and could easily
have been interviewed on the same day. It has been put to me that the decision
to overlook his input cannot simply have been matter of `not being necessary'
as indicated by his answer from the Attorney-General in February. My questions
are:
1. Why did the Police Complaints Authority, in investi-gating
this matter, interview seven police officers, none of whom was present
at the time of the bombing but not follow up the two serving officers who
were there at the event?
2. With this sort of record by the PCA, is it not fair to say
that the South Australian public can have little confidence that any complaint
against the police will be thoroughly and properly investigated?
3. Relating to the report from Judge Stevens, how does the Attorney
believe that Judge Stevens can come to useful conclusions about the processes
for handling police com-plaints, when her terms of reference specifically
prevent her from investigating specific cases?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: We have a hotchpotch of issues raised
by the honourable member. I am surprised that he is persisting with his
questions in relation to the NCA bombing. My recollection is that the issues
he has previously raised into the NCA bombing have been more than adequate-ly
addressed and responded to. If there are any issues which he has now raised
which have not been the subject of previous reflection and comment, I will
be able to bring back a response in relation to that.
There has been no representation from Mrs Iris Stevens in relation
to the terms of reference suggesting that they are inadequate. She can
certainly undertake her work without delving into specific cases and testing
the decisions taken by the Police Complaints Authority. But it is important
to recognise that she can have access to any material that she believes
will be helpful in enabling her to satisfy the obliga-tions required of
her in the terms of reference. The Police Commissioner and the Police Complaints
Authority have both given relevant undertakings and also directions to
ensure that access is provided. As I said, she has not made any representations
to me that she has any difficulty with the terms of reference. If she did,
then I would certainly consider it.
The whole object of Mrs Stevens' task is to look at issues of
process. Concerns have been expressed by police officers about the way
in which the Police Complaints Authority undertakes investigations, breach
of conclusions and reports, as there are issues about the interrelationship
between the Police Complaints Authority and the Internal Investigations
Branch which acts for and on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority
in undertaking investigations. If there are any issues that are new to
which the honourable member has referred, I will bring back a response.
In relation to the length of time to provide a report, my understanding
is that there has been illness in the family of Mrs Stevens and, as a result
of that, it has caused a delay of several weeks. I do not intend to publicly
disclose the details of that reason for the extension of time.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: As a supplementary question, could the
Attorney inquire specifically as to the reason why the PCA did not return
to the two witnesses who were at the event to get corroboration of the
statement made by the Chief Inspector?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I have already given the honourable member
a response in relation to that issue.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan interjecting:
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: On the advice which I have been given
it was not significant, as I recollect. I do not have the advice here.
I will follow up all the issues raised by the honourable member. If there
are matters which need a further response, then I will bring one back.
See the Government's reply: 2 July 1998
and also Ian's News Release on this topic: 4
June 1998