Adjourned debate on second reading.
 
 
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I indicate Democrat support for the second reading of the Bill, which is a very significant piece of legislation and it is essential that this Parliament gets it right. It may well set the stamp of the style and efficiency of policing in this State for a decade, so it is worth making sure that we work efficiently through not only the second reading but also the Committee stage of the Bill, where it is my intention to move several amendments. In its original state, I would argue, the Bill is far from perfect. It appears very much to me as if it is a wish list of the Commis-sioner, Mr Mal Hyde, and that position is reinforced by a document he circulated to all serving police officers dated July 1998 and headed `Police Bill: The Facts About Proposed Changes'. I comment in passing that it seems somewhat unusual, if nothing more, that a serving Commissioner should be so active in the promotion of legislation currently before the Parliament.
 I would question that as being appropriate in the public forum. As a fact of revelation, it may be of use to serving police officers to understand a little more about what is in the Bill, but, essentially, I feel that it is inappropriate for serving police officers to take an active public part up front in the debate on the legislation before the Council. Having said that, I think that the document does contain some quite interesting observations and a very clear comparison in a table form entitled `Police Billóthe facts about proposed changes July 1998' and the national comparison of Commissioners' powers. I seek leave to have this table included in Hansard.
 Leave granted.
  National Comparison of Commissioners' Powers

  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It is an interesting document to compare in various aspects, namely, the powers of the Commissioner, in particular, on contract appointment; ability to appoint external applicants; probationary periods; promotional appeals; and transfer provisions. Members will have a chance to look at the comparison between the South Australian proposed situation and what obtains in the other States. I do not intend, therefore, to go through that docu-ment.
 The Bill, in my view, is the desirable legislation from the Commissioner's point of view, and he has put it forward with very good intention in mind from efficiency and answerabili-ty to him as the commanding officer of a police force. It is my view that the Bill as originally introduced gives to the Commissioner too much power with not enough independent review and appeal or disclosure of orders which will be very much controlling and vital to the working life of serving officers in the police force.
  The amendments that I intend to move will be shaped at moulding that aspect of the Bill, rather than at attempting to frustrate the aim of the Commissioner to have what is his right, namely, the authority and power to manage the police force efficiently and to be able to winkle out non-performers, those whose conduct is not up to standard and those who offend either in minor or serious ways. We cannot have a police force in which there can be corners or cover for the sort of corruption and abuse that has flourished in police forces in other States.
 For many years, I have been attempting to have set up in South Australia an independent arm which would have the capacity to root out corruption not only in the police force but also in other Government departments where it happens to exist, but that is another story. However, it does mean that one of the perspectives which I have brought to the Bill has been an attempt to ensure that when it is finally passed there is adequate surveillance, and the ability for senior officers to move people out of positions for which they are ill-suited or where there are grounds to suspect they are not perform-ingónot necessarily illegally but improperly. All these aspects must be available for the higher authority in the force to be able to address and root out.
 I am attempting to emphasise how seriously the Demo-crats view this Bill and also to indicate the degree of goodwill which has been built up already between the Police Associa-tion, the Democrats and, of latter days, the Government. From private conversations that I have had, I believe that the Opposition intends to follow the same pathóat least in this place.
 It is of mild interest to members that in the other place there was reasonably extensive debate at a rapid rate with little constructive end result. No amendments were moved or passed but there was a fair bit of nitpicking and several times there was, with great relief, reference to its being `patched up in the Upper House' or that amendments would be moved in the Upper House, `where the real work will be done'. Some members may have heard the member for Ross Smith on a previous occasion belting into this august Chamber and arguing that it should be abolished. It is interesting, therefore, for me to quote part of his speech on 8 July at page 1392 in the Committee stages. After the Minister, Mr Evans, had made a comment, Mr Clarke continued:
 I suppose we can go round and round the mulberry bush on this, and this will be my last question because it will be sorted out in another place. . .
It is a beautiful quote which we should enshrine in some way as a memorial to those who criticise the work we do. However, I mention that because I do believe it is in this Chamber that the most constructive work with amendments and moulding the Bill to its final form will be done. I re-emphasise that I believe the climate and the attitude of all players are such that I do not see any problem for us achiev-ing that result. Neither the Commissioner nor the Police Association, nor probably several of the serving police officers, will be totally satisfied. No-one will be able to have a piece of legislation that totally fits their pattern, but from the conversations I have had with the Commissioner in earlier days, when he made quite clear his vision for how the force should be run, and a series of conversations with the associa-tion where I was able to get a feel for its concern about certain aspects, I am encouraged to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments on a range of issues.
 I am taking up some time of the Council this afternoon because I believe it will be an advantage if the Government, the Opposition, the association and, indeed, the Commission-er have a chance to ponder the proposed amendments that I intend to move. I indicate at this stage that I am more than willing at any time to hear contrary debate or argument about why these amendments are inappropriate or should be altered. That can be well before the end of the second reading stage or before the Committee stages are entered into. With that in mind, I crave the indulgence of the Council whilst I refer to my proposed amendments to the Bill.
   The first one relates to clause 6, which refers to the responsibility of the Commissioner for the control and management of the police. The Democrats will seek that the directions of the Minister be written directions because we feel that directions of significance such as these should be clearly specified in a written form. I understand that the Minister supports this proposal.
 Clause 8 deals with certain directions to the Commissioner being gazetted and laid before Parliament. I was a little concerned to note that these directions were to apply only to the enforcement of a law or law enforcement methods, policies, priorities or resources. I do not see why this measure should be prescribed in this way. I would prefer that all ministerial directions to the Commissioner be handled in the same way.
 Clause 10(1)(d) provides that the Commissioner must ensure, amongst other things, the fully accountable manage-ment of resources. In his second reading reply or in Commit-tee, perhaps the Minister could provide a full explanation of what `accountable' means. To whom is the Commissioner to be accountable in this regard? It may be that the Commis-sioner's contract specifies those details of accounta-bility and to whom the Commissioner is accountable. Perhaps the Minister could provide that information in his reply. If not, I will raise this matter in Committee.
 Clause 10(2) paragraphs (f) and (h) provide that the Commissioner must afford employees reasonable avenues of redress and that there be no nepotism or patronage. No mechanism appears to be provided to enable employees to take action to secure their rights in this respect. I will examine the matter to see whether it is necessary for me to move an amendment.
 Clause 11(2) paragraphs (c) and (d) are significant. If my amendment is successful, the requirements or qualifications for appointment or promotion and the appointment and promotion processes will be included in regulations. I will move an amendment to delete those two paragraphs and make them the subject of regulation.
 With respect to clause 13, I will move an amendment to the effect that the Police Commissioner's contract will specify that the Commissioner must meet performance standards set from time to time by the Minister. This provision mirrors section 7 of the current Act, but I intend to move an amendment to ensure that these performance standards are consistent with the proposed Act. Therefore, clause 13(2)(b) will provide:
 that the Commissioner is to meet performance standards consistent with this Act as set from time to time by the Minister.
I will pursue that matter further later. We must ensure not only that these requirements are enshrined in legislation but also that we are vigilant to see that they are upheld. In my political experience, in several instances, an Act may look pretty good but there is no follow-up action.
 Clause 16 refers to the conditions of appointment of Deputy and Assistant Commissioners. I accept that Deputy and Assistant Commissioners will be employed under contract, but I will move an amendment to provide that those contracts be made with the Premier. The Commissioner is employed under contract between himself or herself and the Premier, and I do not see why these other contracts should not be between Deputy and Assistant Commissioners and the Premier. Obviously, this suggestion is open to input from the Commissioner.
  The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjecting:
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I appreciate the Attorney-General's interjection.
  The Hon. K.T. Griffin: The honourable member is referring to Assistant Commissioners who are at executive level but who are not a CEO. Executive level officers are not contracted to the Premier.
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Attorney points out that the Bill reflects common practice in other Government employment procedures. I will take that matter on board and consider it. However, I emphasise that the Democrats do not regard the police as just another department. Police officers are entitled to be regarded as being dedicated in their working life to a vocation or a service. That is one reason why we take this clause so seriously. We believe that for ranks lower than Deputy and Assistant Commissioner there should be no contract of employment and that these officers should be able to be employed with an expectancy that, provided they do the job properly and do not break the code of conduct or behave illegally, they should continue to be employed as police officers.
 Clause 16(4) deals with the contract for an Assistant Commissioner. My amendment seeks to specify the rights of a Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner. Clause 16(4) is meaningless, providing as it does that these officers will have certain rights `if the contract so provides'. However, if these provisions are contained in a contract there is no need to specify them in the statute. If they are not contained in a contract, this clause does not purport to grant such rights. I intend to put forward an amendment to ensure that these rights are available to Deputy and Assistant Commissioners.
 Clause 17(1)(f) I regard seriously. It gives the Government of the day power to get rid of the Police Commissioner for what it deems to be a failure to carry out duties satisfactorily. In my view, this provision gives too much power to the Minister. My amendment will seek to link the Minister's dismissal powers to the Commissioner's performance standard. There will therefore need to be a clear and pub-lished performance standards so that Parliament and the public can see against which criteria the Minister of the day decides that the Commissioner failed to carry out his duties satisfactorily.
 Clause 19(1) provides:
 The Commissioner may, by instrument in writing, delegate any of the powers or functions conferred on, or assigned to, the Commissioner by or under this or any other Actó
  (a) to a particular person.
I believe that that should be restricted to a particular person who is a member of SA Police and I will be moving an amendment to that effect. Clause 22 deals with the ability of the Commissioner to further divide the ranks of officers and other members of SA Police. It seems to me that the alternative ought to be provided that he or she also have the power to consolidate. There is quite a large number of ranks; there are eight levels of commissioned officers supervising three levels of non-commissioned officers. In future it may be appropriate to reduce the levels of commissioned officers, and I believe that the clause ought to be flexible enough to achieve that.
 I hope to move four amendments to clause 23, dealing with contracts. We do not believe that contracting should be used as a management tool for serving police officers other than commissioners. This goes back to my earlier comments about the ethos, the working esprit de corps or the morale of the police force itself. I feel very strongly that, for a serving police officer who has a four or five year contract, the pressures for performance just to secure the renewal of their contract towards the end of that period of time will be very strong. Therefore, I believe that the pressures distorting good policing to achieve whatever he or she may think are the criteria which will ensure renewal will be very strong and unfair. I do not believe that it would improve or even offer the opportunity of improving the quality of policing in South Australia.
  So, we will move to limit the use of contracts in this area to just those people who have been brought in laterally to fill a position which the Commissioner does not feel can be filled from the currently serving police officers. That contract employment would be for a term not exceeding five years. It would be non-renewable so that, if the Commissioner wanted to keep a person on in the police force who had fulfilled their task in the specified time, that person would have to be engaged on the same conditions as other members of the police force at that level, none of whom were undergoing that continuing process of contract employment. I have various suspicions about what can be abuse of contracts. There can be a strong temptation for people to use the termination of a contract as a chance to get rid of people who perhaps simply did not get on with their work mates or superiors. It is important that we remove those undesirable forces from applying to the ordinary serving police officer so, if I am successful, clause 23 will be substantially amended.
 I hope the Attorney may explain clause 26(2) to me. I find this difficult to interpret and will be looking for an explan-ation later in the debate. Clause 26 provides:
 Effective appointment and oath of affirmation
 26. (1) A person who is appointed as a member of SA Police and makes the prescribed oath or affirmation will be taken to have entered into an agreement to serve in SA Police in each position that the person may hold until he or she lawfully ceases to be a member of SA Police.
So far, so good. The clause continues:
   (2) No such agreement is void for want of consideration.
This may be open to quite a loose explanation, but I do not have it and I would ask the Attorney to explain that to us, otherwise, perhaps take it out if I cannot understand it. With regard to clause 27, the Minister has indicated that he supports an amendment that I will move that the probationary period be reduced from two years to one year, so there is no point in dwelling on that. Clause 28 deals with the perform-ance standards for the Commissioner. The clause provides:
 It is a condition of appointment as an officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner that the officer is to meet performance standards as set from time to time by the Commissioner.
I will move that those performance standards be published in the Government Gazette. The more we can make the orders, requirements and standards transparent and available for public scrutiny and comment, the less suspicion, concern and fear there will be within the police force and the more trust there will be in the public outside. So, I will move that amendment to clause 28. Clause 29 provides the penalties for resigning without leave, which seem to be rather draconian. I am not persuaded that there is such a potential horrendous consequence for a member of SA Police resigning.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: There is, and I will talk about that in my reply.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Attorney reassures me he will be looking to discuss that. The amendment I would seek to move would be to allow a member of SA Police to resign or relinquish official duties rather than prohibiting the member of SA Police to resign or relinquish official duties unless he gets authorised permission from the Commissioner, and a couple of other minor qualifications. My amendment would take out that penalty, but that is obviously a matter on which we will hear more from the Attorney, so I look forward to further discussion on that. It is interesting to note that there is no such penalty for the Commissioner, Deputy or Assistant Commissioners who resign without leave. That anomaly may also be addressed by the Attorney.
  The Hon. K.T. Griffin: They are on contract, so you do not need that provision.
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: There is a clause in the Bill which deals with it.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: I will give the honourable member a response.
 The Hon. J.F. Stefani interjecting:
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: But we must see the contract. The interjection is that that matter is dealt with by the commissioners on contract. In the past the contracts have been very difficult to seeóin fact, almost impossible to seeóso I think that, although it may mean that my amend-ment might be framed differently the issue will be pursued so it can be clarified in debate. Clause 33(2) provides the rather anomalous position that a police cadet is not a member of SA Police and is not a Public Service employee. That rather leaves them classless, and I look forward to an explanation as to how one views them. It also provides that the police medical officers are not members of SA Police. Clause 36(3) provides:
 A police medical officer is not a member of SA Police and is not a Public Service employee.
It is just one of those quirky questions to which I look for an answer and explanation later in the debate.
 Clause 41, dealing with suspension where charge of offence or breach of code, when linked with clause 66, provides for suspension without pay if the Commissioner so decides. Losing one's only form of income is a very harsh penalty, especially for someone who at that stage is merely suspected of wrongdoing. Although those proven innocent will get back pay, I would like to see consideration given to some time limit to the extent of this penalty or very specific and clear guidelines to prevent it causing undue hardship from either unconscious misuse or, in fact, deliberate abuse.
 Clause 43(3) deals with the right to apply for review of informal inquiry, and earlier I mentioned the question of making sure that there is always open, fair and independent review. In clause 43(3), when a member applies for a review after a minor misconduct charge has been upheld, I consider it vital that it does not go back to another person appointed by the Commissioner. The person who originally heard the matter is appointed by the Commissioneróand one must recognise the potential human failing in thisóand if the appeal is to be heard by another person again appointed solely by and answerable to the Commissioner the chances of an impartial and objective reappraisal diminish. I hope to come up with a satisfactory amendment which provides that whoever is hearing the review will be at arm's length from the Commissioner of Police. I believe that we can find a formula which will be able to ensure that.
 Clause 44 deals with follow-up of the informal inquiries. Subclause (2) provides:
 The Commissioner may intervene in a particular case if the Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so (whether before or after review of the case under subsection (1) or a review on the application of a member of SA Police or police cadet concerned)ó
 (a) by ordering that a new informal inquiry be conducted or that the processes involved in the informal inquiry be recom-menced from some specified stage;
Again, this is a situation where I feel the Commissioner has inordinate powers of control and intervention. This clause concerns an inquiry into a minor misconduct. If the Commis-sioner does not like the finding or feels that it is going the wrong way it would give him the power to intervene again and again, as many times as it suits his fancy. I feel that this matter should be addressed either by amendment or deletion. I am open to persuasion on it.
  Clause 46(5) concerns unsatisfactory performance and is a more serious level of investigation. The Democrats believe that this clause desperately needs reworking. An unidentified panel of persons will have in their hands a police officer's career. As far as I can discover there is no indication as to how these people will be appointed or from what background they will come. I think that we should look at a procedure whereby there is a pool of nominees from the three sec-torsóthe association, the Government and the Commission-eróand that the panel, whatever number it is, is drawn from that pool. The Democrats find it very difficult to support the clause as it is currently worded. However, I do not oppose the process: the process is fine if the panel clearly can be seen to be independent and competent to hear the matter.
 Clause 47 deals with the power to transfer. This clause provides for the total phasing out of appeals against transfer. In fact, there is permission for only one appeal. It is a rather bizarre clauseóor at least that is my interpretation of it. The combined effect of subclauses (4) and (5) is to ensure that, once a police officer has had one transfer for a specified period which he or she can appeal, every subsequent transfer will be entirely without appeal rights. This could mean that if someone were to get on the wrong side of a malicious Commissioner they could spend their police lifetime moving from outpost to outpost in exile as a form of punishment. That may sound extreme but I think one has to look at the potential for misuse of the legislation as well as the benefits for its proper use.
 Clause 51 deals with processes for appointment or nomination for prescribed promotional positions, and clause 52 deals with the right of review. I will be seeking to amend these clauses consequent to what I hope to do in clause 11, that is, the qualifications for appointment or promotion and appointment and promotion processes. This is a very significant part of the Bill. Serving police officers and the association are extremely sensitive that this area must be clearly predictable, that there is a set of standards which can be relied on to be complied with. Clause 51 provides:
 An appointment to a prescribed promotional position may not be made unless selection processes have been conducted in accordance with the general orders of the Commissioner for the purpose of filling the position.
I will be moving to delete `general orders of the Commis-sioner' and insert `regulations'. Clause 52(3) is a similar matter and provides:
 A member may not make an application under subsection (2)ó
that is the right of review with regard to appointment or promotionó
unless the person has first made application to have his or her grievance in respect of the selection decision dealt with in accord-ance with a process specified in the general orders of the Commis-sioner. . .
Again, I will be moving an amendment to make it by regulation. Clause 55(a) and (b) have the same theme, that is, a determination of question of eligibility for appointment. In paragraph (b) a determination is by the Commissioner, and once again I will be moving to have the specific qualifications that he will be referring to clearly spelt out in the regulations. In clause 55(a) and (b) the same argument applies.
 I go back to clause 53, which is a quite significant amendment. My understanding of it is that it is drafted in contradiction. The clause deals with grounds for application for review and provides:
  An application for a review of a selection decision under this Division may only be made on one or more of the following grounds:
  (a) that the member selected is not eligible for appointment to the position; or
  (b) that the selection processes leading to the decision were affected by nepotism or patronage or were otherwise not properly based on assessment of the respective merits of the applicants; or
  (c) that there was some other serious irregularity in the selection processes,
and may not be made merely on the basis that the Tribunal should redetermine the respective merits of the applicant and the member selected.
It is difficult to pick up from my reading of the clause what the anomaly appears to be, but the clause provides that an application for reviewóand this is a promotional review, a very significant part of a serving police officer's careeróof a selection may only be made on one or more of the grounds as outlined. Therefore, it can be made on one of the grounds. Paragraph (b) provides:
 that the selection processes leading to the decision were affected by nepotism or patronage or were otherwiseó
and this is the part I want to emphasiseó
not properly based on assessment of the respective merits. . .
Therefore, reading up to that point, an officer could seek a review because there had not been a properly based assess-ment of the respective merits, yet the clause concludes:
 . . . and may not be made merely on the basis that the tribunal should determine the respective merits of the applicant and the member selected.
It is directly contradictory. As we believe, it is absolutely essential that merits are included as a process for review. We will seek to delete that last sentence so that it does stay consistent and does allow merit to be a leading criterion for judging the review.
 There are no specific further amendments that I want to indicate in my second reading contribution. The balance of the Bill does not seem to us to be exceptionable: it seems to be satisfactory. As I said earlier, the attitude is such that I am optimistic that we will have a piece of legislation which will be very effective in offering South Australia the very best of policing and which will provide the standard that we have prided ourselves on having, a standard I do not think any of us should shirk from attempting to ensure goes on indefinitely into the future. It will not be gained by giving a Commissioner dictatorial powers, and that is what I believe the original Bill offered. It will not be gained by protecting the slothful, inefficient, non-performing police officer just because of the sort of mateship of `one of us'. There is a challenge: serving police officers have a challenge the same as an armed service when protecting the nation. It is a dedication; it is a vocation; it is a different calling from the ordinary job routine.
 I am not so naive as not to realise that we will not get the ultimate standard of performance from all those who offer and who eventually get taken into the force, because it has been shown clearly that that is not the case. Let us start from the assumption that the vast majority of people who offer to serve in our police force are motivated to do the best they can in terms of thorough, proper, honest and efficient policing for the people of South Australia. This extends from the Com-missioner to the cadets, whatever particular rank or position they have.
 In conclusion, we intend to support the second reading. We believe that there should be no rush to deal with the Committee stages, because that is the time when, much to the appreciation of members in the other place, we do need to roll up our sleeves and do the work that we are set up to do. It is nice to see from their contributions how much they lean on us to do the real work, to make sure that legislation as it comes out of this Parliament is well thought through, where needed effectively amended, and shown to be the product of an efficient Parliament. The proof of the pudding will be in the effective policing. I am convinced that it is comfortably within our reach to ensure that when the Bill finally becomes law it will do just that for us.