In Committee.
 Clause 1.
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I wish to summarise the Opposition's view about the Bill. When the Bill passed the House of Assembly, during the Committee stage the Minister, Hon. Iain Evans, had great difficulty answering questions asked by the Opposition. Also during that debate he conceded that the Bill was deficient. Time and again the Minister repeated that he would be negotiating with the Police Association about a number of the matters raised. Indeed, he did that, but I make the point that the Opposition does not believe that was a particularly good way in which legislation should be developed. We believe negotiation should take place before the legislation is debated in either House of Parliament, rather than towards the end of the process. Nevertheless, that has now happened and the Opposition welcomes that development.  I now wish to comment about the Minister handling the Bill. In this morning's paper he is now tipped to be a new Cabinet Minister, but I hope he organises legislation better next time and speaks to the relevant stakeholders before the legislation comes into the Parliament rather than afterwards. As a result of the discus-sions, the Government has tabled a series of amendments to the Bill which mitigate many of the undesirable aspects that the Opposition sees in the Bill. Further, the remaining undesirable features of the Bill are largely covered by amendments to be moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. The Hon. Mr Gilfillan's amendments have come about as a result of consultation with the Police Association and, rather than tabling similar amendments in this Chamber, the Opposition will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Mr Gilfillan.
 The one exception is to the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which we will be dealing with immediately after this Bill. We have a disagreement there and we will be going further, and I will indicate that at the appropriate time. Together, the amendments tabled will have the effect of dismantling the most objectionable contract system which was originally proposed by the Government for all police officers of or above the rank of senior constable. We will debate how that will come about in the later clauses.
 It is rather incredible that this Government should have such little respect for members of the South Australia Police that it could ever contemplate eroding their employment conditions in such a manner in the first place. Also, it was necessary to partly restore the delicate balance that must exist between the Executive and the powers of the Police Commis-sioner. With the passage of the amendments, we would at least be able to have a great improvement. We look forward to the debate and the passage of the amendments, which will clear up a very inadequate Bill in the way it was originally introduced into the Lower House.
  The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: We can either have an acrimonious debate or a debate that deals with the issues. The State Government does have respect for the South Australia Police and is working with the Commissioner and police in respect of a wide range of matters. I take exception to the assertion that the way in which the Bill was drafted in any way reflects a lack of confidence in the South Australia Police.
  The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: I missed the opportunity to make a second reading contribution. Therefore, I will utilise my opportunity on the following Bill to make a more substantial contribution because it would be improper of me to launch into a second reading speech at this stage. I reinforce the point made by my colleague the Hon. Paul Holloway in respect of this Bill because we have a long history, since this Government came into power with a great deal of fanfare, of promises with respect to police. Most of those pledges and commitments to the public have been substantially altered. The spin doctors have changed the proposition from 200 extra police to 200 police on the beat and a whole range of other matters. My colleague made the point that the Government shows little respect for the people of South Australia, policing and the police force and this is borne out by the fact, without descending to the acrimonious debate to which the Attorney referred, that it gives this very important portfolio dealing with the security of citizensóit has a large impact on thatóof South Australia to a junior Minister. This portfolio is under a junior Minister and is a fair indication of the Government's attitude. However, I will not get involved in a protracted debate at this point.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjecting:
 The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: The facts are there before us. The Attorney-General does not like it. He has the portfolios of Police and Emergency Services under a junior Minister. He does not even give them the credibility of a Cabinet position. I could refer to the incidence of demanning, and a whole range of other things that you have done to the police force. You want these people be incorruptible and you do not want to suffer temptation, but you give them no respect. The people of South Australia expect our police to be properly resourced, properly paid and adequately backed up by Government and given some respect. The people of South Australia are demanding the same thing. I am digressing, but I will come back to the State when the next Bill comes forward, because there is plenty more to come.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will try to improve the tone of the debate by indicating that the fact that a non-Cabinet Minister has the specific responsibility for Police, Correc-tional Services and Emergency Services is no sign of disrespect or otherwise in relation to whether it is a matter of the Police, Correctional Services or Emergency Services, because it comes under a broader portfolio of Justice. Those who have had anything to do with the way in which the system of Cabinet and non-Cabinet Ministers works will know that there is a close relationship between the Cabinet Minister and the non-Cabinet Minister. In the case of myself and the Hon. Iain Evans, there is regular consultation, and we together will meet with the Commissioner of Police and his officers, and there have been discussions also with the association on a variety of issues, although in relation to this Bill, those more recent consultations have been between the Minister for Police, Correctional Services and Emergency Services, and the association. I hope after that little outburst by the honourable member that we can now get down to debating the real issues of this Bill. I note that it has passed the second reading. It will pass in some form or another. It may well go to a deadlock conference. Let us just get on with the job.
 Clause passed.
 Clauses 2 and 3 passed.
 Clause 4.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My question is in relation to the deletion of the word `force' from South Australia Police. There are many people like me who, out of habit, will continue to refer to the police force. I ask the Attorney-General, as someone who has been around this Government for a long time, what is the problem with the word `force'?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The object was to move away from the military hierarchical structure that is associated with the word `force'. A professional body certainly depends upon a rank in many respects, but alsoó
The Hon. P. Holloway: And enforce the law.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: But `force' as used in SA Police force does not have any connotation of enforce-ment but is more aligned to the historical development of South Australia Police as an hierarchical military structured organisation. I think the Commissioner, the police generally and the Government are happy to move away from that description to something which is much more in tune with the times.
 Clause passed.
 Clause 5 passed.
 Clause 6.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I move:
 Page 3, line 20óLeave out `the' (first occurring) and insert:
 `any written'.
Clause 6 provides:
 Subject to this Act and the directions of the Minister, the Commissioner is responsible for the control and management of SA Police.
My amendment is to insert the word `written' and, whilst it is implicit in clause 8 that the directions have to be in writing, this amendment to clause 6 puts the issue beyond doubt.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats support the amendment; it is similar to one we have on file.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I support the amendment.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 7 passed.
 Clause 8.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 3, lines 26 and 27óLeave out `in relation to enforcement of a law or law enforcement methods, policies, priorities or resources'.
The amendment will ensure that the Minister provides a copy of any direction given to the Commissioner, as required in paragraphs (a) and (b), is published in the Gazette and laid before each House of Parliament. The significance of the amendment is that it deletes any limitation which might be inferred by the words `in relation to enforcement of a law or law enforcement methods, policies, priorities or resources'. My amendment deletes those words, because they do not restrict the effectiveness of the clause in any way. It opens it up and makes it more accountable in a complete sense.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendment is opposed. It would have the effect of requiring all directions given by the Minister to Commissioner of Police to be tabled in Parliament and published in the Gazette. I remind members that the police are part of the Executive arm of Government. In a system of responsible Government, there must ultimately be a Minister answerable in Parliament and to Parliament for any Executive operation. The police differ from other parts of the Executive in that they have an independent discretion to investigate and prosecute breaches of the law. Members should recall that in my second reading response I set out the history of the present section 21(1) of the Police Act 1952. If necessary, I can go back and reiterate that, if members cannot recollect the content of that contribution. The section was designed to make it clear that the Minister could give the Commissioner directions about matters of law enforcement and, if he did, those directions would be made public.
 However, there is nothing sacrosanct about the Minister giving directions to the Commissioner of Police on what may be termed non-operational matters. In clause 8, the distinction between operational and non-operational matters is drawn. It is only in relation to the operational matters that directions given by the Minister are required to be published. That distinction between operational and non-operational matters was, as I said in my reply, recognised also by the Wood royal commission as an appropriate division. I also said in my second reading reply that the recommendation of the 1970 royal commissionóand I referred to that at lengthóagain had the same sort of emphasis. Clause 8 in the Bill seeks to implement the recommendation of that 1970 royal commission.
 I point out also that there is nothing unusual about distinguishing between in this instance operational and non-operational matters. In respect of the operational matters no direction can be given except if it is in writing and published. On non-operational matters, directions can be given, for example, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the statute if the Attorney-General is not able to give the DPP directions except in a way which becomes tangible in relation to the exercise of his statutory responsibilities.
For instance, the Attorney-General cannot be directed by the Cabinet in respect of the exercise of certain discretions which are traditionally the responsibility of the Attorney-General but can be and is bound by Cabinet in other areas.
 So, the distinction between those functions where it is proper to give directions and those areas where it is not proper is not unknown. The Government believes that as the Commissioner has responsibility under the Public Sector Management Act for a significant number of public sector employees covered by that Act he is, therefore, in a somewhat different position from being Commissioner for Police. However, in terms of the way in which SA Police is man-aged, there are issues which are not of an operational nature where it would be quite appropriate for directions to be given. So, that distinction exists and it is quite appropriate. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment. If this amendment is carried by the Committee it will have the effect of ensuring that any direction that the Minister gives to the Police Commissioner is published in the Gazette. The Minister for Justice bases his case against the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment on the basis that there is a differentiation between operational and non-operational directions.
 One of the problems I foresee is that a direction from the Minister that may be technically non-operational may have the effect of in some way influencing the operational activities of the police force. Even if it is not technically or specifically non-operational in its effect, it may in an indirect way influence operations. I think the safest way of dealing with this is to ensure that all directions that the Minister gives to the Police Commissioner are made public. I do not think there would be so many directions that this would create a problem. On that basis, the Opposition supports the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I hope to be able to explore this matter later because I think that what the honourable member suggests is a nonsense. In the day-to-day administra-tion of Government and the South Australian police, if there is a Commissioner who is difficult, who will not provide information about the budget, who decides to embark uponó
 The Hon. P. Holloway: Why should the public not know about that? If the Commissioner is difficult, shouldn't we all know that?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Because then there may on many occasions be directions in relation to administration. In the Public Service written directions are not given to the CEO on every administrative matter. It would become unworkable. If there is a difficult Commissioner who wants to embark upon an area of administration which duplicates what is happening in government, why should a direction to refrain from getting involved in that have to be in writing and published in the Gazette?
 There is a legitimate concern about operational mattersóand we have recognised that in the amendment to clause 6 which has been carriedóbecause the police have an inde-pendent discretion. Whether you are a constable or the Commissioner, you have an independent discretion as to whether or not you should make an arrest or take other action. No-one is seeking to get involved in that other than by a written direction, but the moment you get into administration you have myriad matters upon which there may need to be made if not a direction then certainly a request.
 For example, a parliamentary question may be sent to the Commissioner requiring an answer to be delivered by a certain date. That happens in the normal course: we want the answer by a certain date. If it takes longer, we ask for an explanation. Fortunately, the Commissioner is helpful and responsive to requests for that sort of information. However, if this is included in the Bill in such a broad fashion we may well reach the point where, if a parliamentary clerk merely requires a response to a question by a certain date, that can be construed as a direction. I do not think members would be interested in that, but that is one of the possible outcomes. We need to work through some solutions to those sorts of requirements.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I hope this may be a catch-all for all the debate and hassle that might ensue, otherwise we might be here for a week. The fact is that SA Police is not another branch of the Public Service. SA Police is a separate entity and must be treated separately. It must be looked at from a constructive point of view as being at arm's length from interference by Government in its day-to-day adminis-tration. Whatever may be the petty encumbrances that are created by this amendment, they will be monstrously outweighed by the advantage of having an absolutely guaranteed and patently clear line of communication between the Minister and the Commissioner.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: That's not what the Wood Royal Commission said.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: This is the South Australian Parliament, and we are dealing with SA Police. This is why this legislation should be dealt with in this context. I am prepared to listen, as I have in the past, to the argument that has been put forward, but I want to make clear that because a certain practice pertains throughout the public sector it does not carry any weight with me that automatically it should apply to SA Police.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Government will not call for a division. The Opposition and the Democrats have indicated their position, and we have a clear indication of where this is going. The fact that the Government does not call for a division should not be construed as a sign of weakness.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clauses 9 and 10 passed.
 Clause 11.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 4, lines 32 and 33óLeave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
These matters will be dealt with by way of a further amend-ment. My amendment deletes from this clause which generally deals with orders the two categories of `require-ments or qualifications for appointment or promotion' and `appointment and promotion processes' because I believe they are special categories. Rather than go into detail about how they will be dealt with by way of a later amendment, I move this amendment because the Democrats believe that they require a more stringent process than the other matters listed in this clause.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendment is opposed. Flexibility and the ability to change are integral to effective human resource management, and these matters are best placed within general orders.
Any change would need to conform to the personnel manage-ment requirements in relation to fairness, discrimina-tion, equal opportunity and a variety of other criteria and require-ments. An awareness of the requirement should be the issue rather than an approach which places impediments in the way of change.
 If we take the Public Sector Management Act provisions as a precedent, there really is very little that needs to be provided for. The Public Sector Management Act provides that appointments and promotions must be made only as a consequence of a selection process conducted on the basis of merit in accordance with the regulations (sections 33, 39 and 42 of the Act).
 The regulations provide that selection processes to be conducted on the basis of merit must comply with the personnel management standards contained in Part 2 of the Act and any relevant directions issued by the Commissioner (regulation 9). Part 2 of the Act is similar to clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill which inter alia require the Commissioner to ensure that selection processes for filling positions are based on a proper assessment of merit. There is in fact nothing for the regulations to do except go around in circles, like the Public Sector Management Act and the regulations, and for that reason it is appropriate to leave paragraphs (c) and (d) in the subclause.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Bill in its current form allows the Police Commissioner to make general or special orders in relation to matters of appointment or promotion. What the Hon. Ian Gilfillan is seeking to do is make matters relating to appointment and promotion by regulation. In practice that would mean that the Police Commissioner would no doubt draft such regulations; however, they would be subject to disallowance by either House of this Parliament.
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Exactly, and they would go through the Hon. Angus Redford's committee. Because of the importance of matters of appointment and promotion in the police forceóand this was a matter of some dispute in the original Billóthe Opposition will support the amendments moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. By deleting it from here and supporting his amendment later we will ensure that this process will come about by way of regulation and therefore be subject to further scrutiny processes. We support those extra processes.
  The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: As Chairman of the Legislative Review Committee, I must say that if the regime proposed by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan is adopted in this legisla-tion it will give the committee some say and a responsibility to review each of the regulations. I have some concern about that. I have the highest regard for my colleagues on the Legislative Review Committee, but not one of us has served as a police officer; and to give us, as a committee, the role to review by regulation seems bizarre. We do not expect any appointment to any other position to be reviewed by regula-tion; nor are procedures or qualifications in any other sense, generally speaking (and I am sure there are exceptions), prescribed by regulation. It seems to me that if we are to ask the Police Commissioner to manage the police force he ought to be given the opportunity to do so.
 With all due respect, to have the Hon. Ron Roberts, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and me reviewing requirements or qualifications for appointment or promotion, and the appoint-ment of promotion processes, would be bizarre. We are neither qualified to do that, nor should we be expected to do so. At the end of the day, if we keep doing these sorts of things, all we do is blur the line of accountability, and if something goes wrong no-one is accountable and no-one can sheet home up the blame to any specific person or body because the responsibility is blurred. This is a nonsense.
  The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: I will make a contribution because my name has been mentioned in this debate as a member of the Legislative Review Committee. I have never been a lawyer, but that does not stop me reviewing the court rules that come before the committee. There is the catch-all, and it may not be the most efficient in the world, that all regulations are subject to the purview of the whole of the Parliament, and either House can disallow them. Indeed, many of the members of this Chamber and the other Chamber are eminently qualified to do so.
 I think that the proposition is not as simple as my col-league on the Legislative Review Committee has put it. What we are really trying to do is develop a system which has fairness and equity, and to ensure that that occurs the Hon. Ian Gilfillan has said that it ought to be done by regulation. It is well known in this place that my preference normally is for these things to be done by legislation. I am assuming that the Police Association and the Police Commissioner have been involved in discussions and that they have a difference of view, but at the end of the day it is not for them to make the decision: it is for this place and our colleagues in another place to do so.
 I completely discount the proposition put by the Hon. Angus Redford that he, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and I will be reviewing this, because the committee is much broader than that and, as I said, it has the overview of the whole of the Parliament.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 12 passed.
 Clause 13.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 6, line 12óAfter "Minister" insert:
 (which must be consistent with the aims and requirements of this Act)
Under subclause (2)(b) the Commissioner is to meet perform-ance standards as set from time to time by the Minister, and my amendment then inserts the words "(which must be consistent with the aims and requirements of this Act)". This may appear a minor matter but it does make certain that the Minister, in setting these performance standards, complies with an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of this State.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: With respect to the honourable member, any conditions must be consistent with the Act: it would be unlawful for them to be inconsistent with the Act. I do not support the amendment, but I will not go to the wall over it because it really does not do anything other than what the law already is. Any conditions do have to be consistent, and anything which is inconsistent with the Act will in fact be unlawful.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clauses 14 and 15 passed.
 Clause 16.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 7, line 14óLeave out "Commissioner" and insert:
 Premier
This amendment is designed to vary the parties to the contracts of employment of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.
In the Bill, it is supposedly between the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner. My amend-ment would delete `Commissioner' and insert `Premier' so it would be consistent with the employment contract parties as apply to the Commissioner. Clause 13 provides:
 . . . subject to a contract between the Commissioner and the Premier.
It is our belief that the same should apply to contracts of employment for the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioneróthat those contracts be between those people and the Premier.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: With respect, there is no logic in that. We are endeavouring to establish a proper structure, that is, the Commissioner has responsibility for the manage-ment and performance of SA Police and is responsible to the Premier under his contract. The provisions in respect of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners should be that they are responsible to the Commissioner. If one interposes the Premier, there are, potentially, conflicting lines of authority and responsibility and, if one puts into a manage-ment structure the potential for divided responsibilities and loyalties, one may end up with a sense of confusion.
 I point out that, notwithstanding the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's observation that we should not be treating the police as though they were public servants under the Public Sector Management Act, all we are seeking to do in respect of drawing comparison between SA Police and the Public Sector Management Act is to look at the management structure. There are additional rights given here which are not in the Public Sector Management Act and there are different approaches in relation to some aspects of the employment of public servants, but there is an appropriate management structure because the Commissioner's responsibility is to manage SA Police.
 The provisions in the Bill actually follow the Public Sector Management Act in having the contracts of executives with the chief executive. So, in the Attorney-General's Depart-ment, for example, the Chief Executive Officer has a contract with the Premier, but the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and others at the executive level have contracts with the Chief Executive Officer. That is the appropriate structure and the appropriate line of accountability and for that reason we oppose the amendment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition will support the amendment. I understand the point that the Minister for Justice is making about lines of communication but, neverthe-less, the original contract of the Police Commissioner is with the Premier in the first place. In relation to such an important position as Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commission-er, at this instance we will support the amendment to keep that consistency.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN:. I move:
 Page 7, line 19óAfter `Commissioner' insert `and published in the Gazette'.
Again, this is a repetition of the efforts of our amendments to ensure public disclosure so that performance standards will be available to public scrutiny and to this Parliament.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendment is opposed. It is not clear what this amendment will achieve. No perform-ance standards have to be published in the  Gazette under the Public Sector Management Act. I remind the honourable member that performance standards are a management tool. In fact, a lot of the performance standards are already, in a sense, incorporated in the legislation through clause 10ó`General management aims and standards'. It is not clear what this will achieve and whether it is even practicable to develop performance standards which in toto, when pub-lished, will be appropriate for that purpose. I oppose the amendment: no good purpose is to be served by that amend-ment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The purpose to be served by the amendment, as the Opposition sees it, is accountability. We see no reason why, if the Deputy Commissioner is to be told that he has to meet performance standards, those performance standards should not be made publicly available, so we support the amendment.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 7, lines 27 to 36 and page 8, lines 1 to 4óLeave our subclauses (4) and (5) and insert:
 (4) If, immediately before a person was first appointed as an Assistant Commissioner, he or she held an appointment under this Act or the Act repealed by this Act (the person's `former appointment), the person is, on not being reappointed at the end of a term of appointment, entitled to an appointment at the same rank as the person's former appointment.
 (5) If, immediately before a person was first appointed as an Assistant Commissioner, he or she did not hold an appoint-ment under this Act or the Act repealed by this Act, the person's contract must provide that the person will be entitled to some other specified appointment in SA Police in the event that he or she is not reappointed at the end of a term of appointment.
This amendment provides a form of security to the people who may from time to time be appointed as Assistant Commissioner in the event of the termination of that appoint-ment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendment is opposed. Subclauses (4) and (5) repeat the existing section 9A subsections (4) and (5). They were inserted in 1996 without any objections from the Australian Democrats. I recognise the Hon. Mr Gilfillan was not here at the time, but why turn the clock back to before 1996?  Opinions may differ as to whether officers below the rank of Assistant Commissioner should have a fall back position, but given employment conditions elsewhere in the Public Service it is difficult to see why Assistant Commissioners should have a guaranteed fall back position. A person appointed from outside the police should not automatically be entitled to some other position in the event of not being reappointed. There would need to be good reason for such a person to gain tenure and that should be left to the terms of the contract on which the appointment is made. There may also be instances where it would be appropriate to offer an internal applicant only one term of five years.
 The sort of provision which the honourable member is seeking to insert, in the Government's view is inappropriate and ignores the whole purpose of contractual arrangement with the occupants of those senior executive positions and certainly would put them in a stronger position than exec-utives in other areas of the public sector.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As a matter of principle, the Opposition supports this amendment moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan which will give at least some security to an Assistant Commissioner. If the contract is not renewed at least he will be able to retain some employment. As a matter of principle we support the amendment.
  The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: This comes back to a fundamental problem that this Government has. This is about job security and getting the best people to apply for the jobs. This Government does not understand that within our police force we have very competent, efficient people with good records who are capable of doing many of these jobs. The Government wants to take away their job security and put them on contracts. The Government is all about contracts. It is not about unions or workers; it wants to put them on a contract and have them put aside their careers. It is pretty good at quoting the Public Service legislation but when we passed that Act we enacted similar measures as this to allow these very efficient officers within our Public Service to take these positions and not be left out in the cold. We used to have very competent people within our own Public Service, trained at public expense, who were not going to take tenuous jobs for short periods and then be chucked out onto the scrap heap. But that is the way you people operate. So, there is a fundamental difference in approach between the Opposition and Democrats and the Government on this proposition. What happened in 1996ó
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: Is irrelevant.
 The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS:ódoes have some relevance, but in 1996 this legislation was opened up by your Governmentóthe same Government. Why did you not include all the rest of these things in 1996? It is because things changed and because your attitude is now clear towards the South Australian police force and workers in general. I support the amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: For fear of stimulating an outright war, all I should do is indicate that nothing has changed in relation to Deputy or Assistant Commissioners since 1996. The legislation was supported by the Parliament at that stage and the current incumbents of those executive offices do not as of statutory right have guaranteed fall-back positions. I think that, with respect, it has nothing to do with other arguments about contracts and term appointments: this is about the executive level of the SA Police, within the same structure as those who are on executive levels under the Public Sector Management Act.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 17.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 8, line 20óLeave out `satisfactorily or to' and insert
 `in a manner that satisfies'.
My amendment seeks to vary the wording in paragraph (f) dealing with the termination of appointment of a Commis-sioner, Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. The current wording provides that an appointment may be terminated if such a person has for any other reason failed to carry out duties satisfactorily or to the performance standards set under the contract relating to his or her appointment. I seek to delete `satisfactorily or to' and to insert `in a manner that satisfies'. So, we will replace the subjective and arbitrary criterion that they must carry out their duties `satisfactorily' with the clear injunction that it must have been a failure to satisfy the performance standards that are set. It is in our view a safer, more predictable and reliable measure.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendment is opposed. The provision in the Bill is the same as the present provision, section 9b(1)(f). It is also the same as the provision which applies to chief executives in the Public Service, section 12(1)(a)(6) of the Public Sector Management Act. It is not reasonable to expect that every aspect of the Commissioner's, Deputy Commissioners' and Assistant Commissioners' duties will be set out in their performance standards. For example, clause 10 sets out the management practices which the Commissioner must follow, and not all of these relate to matters which would be included in performance standards. So, the honourable member's amendment is unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives.
 Amendment carried: clause as amended passed.
 Clause 18 passed.
 Clause 19.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I have taken note of the Attorney's comment in his second reading speech. I had intended to move an amendment that the Commissioner's power of delegation would be restricted to a member of the SA Police. I was persuaded by the Attorney's argument that that would be too restrictive so I am not proceeding with that. As it currently stands the clause provides that the Commis-sioner will retain the power of delegation to a particular person, and that does not specify that it must be a member of the SA Police.
 This gives me an opportunity to observe that the Demo-crats have attempted to ensure that the Commissioner has as much effective managerial control as is possible in an open and, to a degree, democratic structure. This has not been an attempt to deliberately curtail powers which are arguably (and I have accepted the argument) essential for the head of the police force to have control of that force. But the measures must be transparent; they must be referrable to the representa-tives of the people in this State, that is, the Parliament in most cases; and his or her decisions must always be liable to proper review, just interpretation and rejudgment if there is an appeal on a judgment that he or she has made. In the first instance our inclination to move this amendment was to restrict the Commissioner from bringing in any Tom, Dick, Harry, Jill or Joan to take on any particular job. That was the reason for the intended amendment, about which I spoke in my second reading speech. I indicate that the Attorney's argument persuaded me that that was too restrictive, and therefore I am not proceeding with it
 The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: If a delegation is made to someone who is not a member of the police force, are they entitled to all the benefits and subject to all the penalties of the Act, or would that be something separate in the contrac-tual arrangement made by the Commissioner and the contracted person? Would their terms and conditions be governed by their contract or would they be entitled to protection under the Act? I think the answer is the second case.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Let me give you an example. The person responsible for human resources management is at the moment not a member of SA Police but, rather, a public servant under the Public Sector Management Act. If the Police Commissioner could not delegate to her, it would be impossible for that person to undertake her role and function. She is not the only civilian to whom the Commis-sioner needs to delegate functions. The actual terms and conditions of appointment of that person to that particular job will be governed, in the case of the Director of Human Resources Management, by the provisions of the Public Sector Manage-ment Act and, if on contractóand I cannot remember whether or not she is on contractógoverned by the terms of contract under the umbrella of the Public Sector Management Act. Does that take it as far as you want to take it?
 The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS: I think I understand what you are saying. If they were not a member of the police force, they would be under the Public Service Act. They would not have the same constraints on them as a police officer in the same position.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: For example, the Director of Human Resources does not have and cannot exercise the independent discretion of a police officer. So, as I understand it there are restrictions on the way in which that person can be involved as a member. For example, that person does not have the capacity or the power to arrest, other than as a citizen's arrest, as a member of SA Police, because that person is not a sworn police officer.
 Clause passed.
 Clause 20.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Clause 20, relating to the appointment of police officers, provides:
 The Commissioner may appoint as many commanders, superin-tendents, inspectors and other officers of police as the Commissioner thinks necessary.
The current procedures under the Police Act are that the Commissioner of Police makes a recommendation to the Minister, who then prepares a Cabinet submission. It goes through the whole Cabinet and, ultimately, through the process to the Governor. In debate in the House of Assembly on this particular measure the Minister claimed that he was moving this because the process was unwieldy. The Minister said:
 Where does one go to get independent advice about these nominations? That caused me to sit back and really think about whether the Minister should be involved. Where do I go to get independent advice about a particular nomination, and how do I check up on nominations, if that is required of me? That is one of the issues.
He went on to sayóand I want to ask the Attorney about this:
 Quite often the Attorney, as the Minister for Justice, and I will meet to discuss individual applicants. So, the time of two Ministers of the Crown is tied up over what is essentially a promotion. We often have questions. We have sent a number of submissions back to the Commissioner asking certain questions about why the recommendation has been made. . . While the process seems very simple on the surface, it is quite complex when one comes to recommending and processing applications through the system as to whether or not someone should become what is currently a commissioned officer.
Having read that, I was rather pleased that members of the Government took their obligations seriously enough to ask questions and to send back submissions asking questions. I wonder whether the Attorney, like his colleague, finds that a particularly onerous procedure? I would like to hear the Attorney's views as to whether he believes that is no longer necessary.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not have any disagree-ment with what my colleague in another place has said about the process. It really falls into two parts. On the one hand, under the present Act the Governor may appoint as many commanders, superintendents or inspectors as the Governor thinks necessary, and every officer appointed will receive a commission signed by the Governor. So, there are two issues; first: what should be the structure of SA Police? How many of these different ranks should there be? That is essentially a management function. It is not a function of the Government to make a decision in terms of, `Yes, there will be three commanders, 10 inspectors and five superintend-ents,' or whatever the structures might be. I am sure someone who is much more expert at this than I will be able to say, `Look, you have it all upside down.' I am just throwing those figures around as mere examples about what is required of the Minister and the Government, which will be the whole Cabinet, in making a decision about how many of them there will be.
 We are not equipped to do that. We do not make those decisions even within our own departments. The decisions about the number of executive officers and administrative officersóASO-8, ASO-7, ASO-6, ASO-5, and so onóis a matter for the chief executive officer. Frequently, the chief executive officer will give that responsibility to other officers at different levels. We are not equipped to deal with that, but at the moment under the Act we are required to do it. So, it is a bit like flying blind. It is not just a matter of the Minister doing it: it is a matter of the whole Cabinet doing it and then taking it up to the Governor in Council.
 The second issue is: who should be appointed? Generally, the selection processes are run within the SA Police under the authority of the Commissioner. The difficulty for the Minister is that the Minister has no input into who should be selected and, more particularly, has no involvement in the selection process as a member of the panel or by way of a nominee on the panel. Then, the Commissioner presents a recommenda-tion to the Minister. As the Minister says, he and I do talk about these, because the process with a non-Cabinet Minister is that the Cabinet Minister and the non-Cabinet Minister countersign a submission into the Cabinet. I have the responsibility for dealing with it in the Cabinet. If it is approved it goes to the Governor in Council.
 For the Minister and for me as the Cabinet Minister, we do not have any idea of all the qualities that were assessed in each of the candidates who presented. Basically, we have to accept the recommendation made by the Commissioner, although we do ask questions about persons who are particu-larly recommended. Having done that, we then have to put up a submission to the Cabinet, and the whole Cabinet may if it wishes ask questions about it and not merely rubber stamp it. Then, it goes to the Governor in Council to be dealt with by proclamation.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: That will all be history now.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Well, the honourable member asked me some questions and I wanted to put it into perspec-tive. It is all of that which suggested to the Government that it was an inappropriate process to be followed, because it had so many steps in it and because, ultimately, the Minister, although accountable, did not necessarily have any involve-ment in the process.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Attorney has explained that the scrutiny has been limitedóand as an aside let me compliment the Attorney on his explanation; it was certainly much more revealing than that of his colleague in another placeóbut does he believe that, with those questions no longer being asked, it is removing an important protection from the system?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not think it is, because clause 10 sets the management principles which are required to be followed. Ultimately, the Commissioner is responsible through the provisions of the Act, the contract and the performance standards. I think there are sufficient checks and balances there for us not to be concerned about changing the process.
 Clause passed.
 Clause 21 passed.
 Clause 22.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 10, line 11óAfter `divided' insert: or consolidated.
The amendment is intended to spell out clearly that the Commissioner has the capacity to further divide the ranks of officers and other members of SA Police, but also to consoli-date. An answer was given in the second reading reply by the Attorney to the effect that by just not appointing it would let a particular rank expire. I think it is better to have it clearly spelt out so that there is no misunderstanding that the ranks of officers and other members of SA Police may be further divided or consolidated under the regulations.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: This amendment is not worth going to the wall on. The Government's view is that it is not necessary, because the Commissioner would have power to consolidate ranks merely by not appointing anyone to a particular rank. If the honourable member wishes to make it explicit, it is not for me on this occasion to take issue.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 23.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I move:
 Page 10, after line 20óInsert:
 (1a) A person must not be appointed for a term under this section to a position below the rank of inspector exceptó
  (a) where the person has special expertise that is required but not available within SA Police; or
  (b) in other cases of a special kind prescribed by regulation.
My amendment paves the way for the insertion of new subclause (1a) which will provide for the appointment of persons below the rank of inspector but of and above the rank of senior constable on term appointments of persons only from outside SA Police. As to the proposal to insert a new subclause, it gives a sense of completeness to the debate. Clause 23 as presently drafted allows the appointment of a person from outside SA Police to a position of or above the rank of senior constable to be for a term not exceeding five years. This amendment provides that a person who is not a member of SA Police can only be appointed from outside SA Police to a rank of or above the rank of senior constable and below the rank of inspector if the person has special expertise that is required but not available within SA Police.
 The amendment also allows for other cases of a special kind to be prescribed by regulation. It has never been intended that senior constables, sergeants and senior sergeants from outside SA Police would be included routinely on term appointments. The only time there would be term appoint-ments to these ranks would be when there is some special expertise required that is not available within the SA Police. A person with that expertise may be required until the expertise can be acquired by existing members of SA Police. It may be that special expertise is required for only a short time and, if a person with that expertise is appointed perma-nently, the problem of what to do with the person once the special expertise is no longer needed would arise. This new subclause confines term appointments in the way that it was always intended it should operate. The provision is not likely to be used on a significant number of occasions, but it does provide a useful measure of flexibility, which will ensure that required expertise can be acquired in an appropriate way.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: This clause and the amendments to it are probably the most significant aspects of the Bill. I will not revisit all of the second reading observations, but it is important to identify what is at issue with both the clause and the amendments. Although it is strongly denied, and I accept the denial by the Commissioner and the Government, that this would not be used as a way of drawing contracts in as a form of employment for serving police officers, it is my judgment that, as it is in the Bill, it leaves the prospect open. I have on file amendments which will limit the ability to introduce non-serving SA Police personnel at the discretion of the Commissioner under contract but only for one specified period, which is not renewable on a contract basis. If the Commissioner wants to retain the services of that person, the person then must become, ipso facto, a serving member of SA Police.
 I wish to outline the details of my amendment, because it is germane to the discussion of whether we support or oppose the Government's amendments. We will be opposing the Government's amendments and moving that the words `appointment of an officer, or an' be deleted. Then in paragraph (a) we would insert `non-renewable term not exceeding five years'. In paragraph (b) I will be moving to delete `including conditions excluding or modifying a provision of this Act'. This would leave the Commissioner free to determine the conditions of the contract. I will be moving to delete subclauses (2), (3) and (4) and replacing them with the following subclauses:
 (2) A person must not be appointed for a term under this section exceptó
  (a) where the person has special expertise that is required but not available within SA Police; or
  (b) in other cases of a special kind prescribed by regulation.
 (3) A person must not be appointed for a term under this section more than once and a term of any appointment under this section must not be extended.
I foreshadow those amendments because of the argument to indicate why I will be opposing the Government's amend-ment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Clause 23 is arguably the most objectionable of the entire Bill. If the Bill had been passed in the form in which it came into the Parliament, every police officer of or above the rank of senior con-stableósome 1 500 police officersócould have been placed on contract. The conditions as to their remuneration and other matters would have been as the Commissioner considered appropri-ate. Clearly that has been the matter that has been the subject of most discussion on the Bill.
 The Government has come up with amendments that certainly greatly improve the position over the way it came into this Parliament. Nevertheless, the Opposition believes we should go further, and consequently we will be supporting those amendments to clause 23 which are to be moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and which will greatly reduce the number of situations where a contract may be offered to police officers. Indeed, when these amendments are carried they will apply only to where the person has special expertise or in other cases of a special kind that are prescribed by regulation.
 That is the approach which we believe is necessary to make this Bill acceptable before we can support its passage in any way, shape or form. We will therefore oppose the amendment moved by the Minister, not because it is objec-tionable in itself but because it is inconsistent with the amendments which will be moved later by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and which we support.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It is gratifying to know that at least part of what the Hon. Mr Gilfillan is moving is the proposition that the Government has developed in consulta-tion with the Commissioner and the Police Association. However, it is disappointing that that is not the end of it, and I imagine there will be some further discussions in the deadlock conference on this, anyway.
  Some aspects of the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan are not acceptable. The Government is firmly of the opinion that the appointment of serving officers on term appointments should be an option available to the Commis-sioner, just as it is for chief executives under the Public Sector Management Act. In addition, it does not make sense for all the provisions of the Act to apply to a contract, for example, clause 27, which relates to probationary appoint-ments. It may be that a contract will contain special provi-sions as to how it is terminated. The transfer provisions may be inappropriate, and it may be inappropriate for a person on a term appointment to receive allowances under clause 89.
 The only other point is in relation to lines 21 to 37. The removal of subclauses (2), (3) and (4) will remove flexibility, and we will have to consider some issues in further consulta-tion. For example, what if a person is on a term appointment for a period of, say, three years to do a specific task and the task takes longer than expected? If this amendment is accepted, the person could not be appointed for a short additional time to finish the task. So, there is a long way to go on this. Fortunately, all the parties are moving closer to an acceptable outcome, but there is still a lot more work to be done yet.
 Amendment negatived.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 10, line 14óLeave out `of an officer, or an appointment'.
I spoke to the bracket of my amendments, and I do not intend to repeat what I said.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 10, lines 19 and 20óLeave out `, including conditions excluding or modifying a provision of this Act'.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It would now be inappropriate for me to move my amendment in the light of indications from the Opposition and the Hon. Mr Gilfillan.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 10, lines 21 to 37óLeave out subclauses (2), (3) and (4) and insert:
 (2) A person must not be appointed for a term under this section exceptó
 (a)  where the person has special expertise that is required but not available within SA Police; or
 (b)  in other cases of a special kind prescribed by regulation.
 (3) A person must not be appointed for a term under this section more than once and the term of any appointment under this section must not be extended.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2) provides that a person cannot be appointed for a term under this section except where that person has special expertise that is not otherwise available within SA Police. Subclause (3) provides:
 A person must not be appointed for a term under this sec-tion more than once and the term of any appointment under this section must not be extended.
I say this for the record when this goes into conference: at the end of a five year period, if you still do not have a person of special expertise, you cannot reappoint that same personó
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: They can be appointed then as a permanent member of SA Police.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I take the honourable member's interjection. Even so, if there is some specific problem or issue of which there is a time frame that might not come within the five year period envisaged earlier, there may well be a problem here. I flag that; it might be something we can revisit when legislation is revisited down the track when problems arise. It seems a bit strange.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I thank the Hon. Mr Redford for his comment. It may be an interpretation that needs to be looked at in the drafting. I repeat: the intention of my amendment is not to cut off or guillotine someone who may, at the end of a five year period or whatever term, be considered to be still desirable in the police force but rather that that continuation would mean that that person was drawn in as a fully fledged member of SA Police and no longer under contract.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clauses 24 to 26 passed.
 Clause 27.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN:I move:
 Page 11, lines 21 and 22óLeave out subsection (1) and insert:
 (1) Subject to this section, a person's appointment to a position in SA Police will be on probation for a period determined by the Commissioner not exceedingó
 (a) in the case of a person who, immediately before appointment, was not a member of SA Policeótwo years; or
 (b) in any other caseóone year.
Under clause 27, a person appointed to a position in SA Police will be on probation for a period of two years. This is appropriate for the appointment of a person who is new to South Australia Police but on reflection is too long a proba-tionary period where the appointment is a promotional one. The probationary period for a promotional appointment is now six months under regulation 47(a) of the police regula-tions. This is too short to allow a proper assessment and to take the necessary measures if the appointment is not to be confirmed. One year will allow a proper assessment of the appointee to be made and for the appointment to be terminat-ed if necessary.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I understand that I have a similar amendment on file, or am I confused about this?
 The CHAIRMAN: It is not quite the same, as your amendment relates only to line 22.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I do not have the Attorney's amendment in front of me.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I can enlighten the honourable member. As I have indicated, my amendment seeks to provide that, where a person who comes in is not already a member of SA Police, the probationary period will be two years. That seems to be reasonable. If the appointment is a promotional oneóthat is, from within SA Policeóthe probationary period will be a year.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I oppose the amend-ment. I misunderstood the Government's intention. I believed that it was moving an amendment that was identical to mine. I am not persuaded by the Government's argument. I think that a probation period of one year is adequate. If you cannot measure the quality and performance of a person in 12 months, two years will not make much difference.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition opposes the Government's amendment in favour of the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment. It is my understanding that in the Public Service there are much shorter periods of probation than 12 months: in many cases, it is three months or six months. I would have thought that one year is a sufficient period in which to assess someone's suitability, regardless of whether they come from within or outside the police force. Given that the contract is only for five years, the Opposition believes that one year is a sufficient period during which a person should be on probation.
 The Hon. T.G. Roberts: It encourages good manage-ment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have thought so. It seems to me that it is unsatisfactory to have someone on probation for as long as two years, and I do not think it is good management practice. For that reason the Opposition supports a uniform 12 month probationary period for all appointments.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It is my understanding that when a person goes through the academy they do nine months of training and then become a probationary constable. The present position is that they are on probation for two years. The honourable member's amendment will turn back the clock. I believe that a two year period of probation is needed for those who graduate from the academy to be properly assessed in a variety of tasks on the job.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 11, line 22óLeave out `two years' and insert `one year'.
 The CHAIRMAN: The question is that all words in lines 21 and 22 down to but excluding `two years' stand part of the clause.
 Question carried.
 Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment carried.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: In view of the vote, I will not proceed with my amendments, which are consequential.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 11, lines 34 and 35óLeave out `two years' and insert `one year'.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 28.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 12, line 14óAfter `Commissioner' insert `and published in the Gazette'.
My amendment provides that the performance standards be published in the Gazette. I repeat my earlier observations in respect of a series of amendments where we have attempted to create more transparency and openness. We do not see this measure as being onerous.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment mirrors one which we discussed earlier about providing greater accountability by publishing this information in the Gazette. The Opposition supports the amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Government opposes the amendment. It is not clear what this amendment is intended to achieve. I have already indicated that the performance standards of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner may not necessarily include every aspect of what is required in terms which might be capable of clear definition. Some of them will be objectives which will be more broadly identified. As no performance standards have to be published in the Gazette under the Public Sector Management Act, why should police officers be any different in that respect? As I said earlier, performance standards are a management tool.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Will the Attorney outline what he envisages should be included in the performance standards? How prescriptive are they likely to be?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I want to make a couple of comments about the performance standards and the reason why I emphasise this amendment. Under this clause, these performance standards can be set from time to time by the Commissioner. That may be acceptable but, if a police officer attempts to match those performance standards, it is appropri-ate that they not be changed on a whim, that they have some degree of reliability and consistency and that they not be secret in nature.
It is very hard for me to see any argument why they should not be published in the Government Gazette. I think the points I have made reinforce my earlier argument.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The difficulty is really to generalise on performance standards. For example, a local area commander might be given performance standards in relation to financial management, relationships with members of the community or lack of complaints. It may be that there will be other measures about relationships with the broader community and the establishment of the goal of community liaison officers under the command of that officeróa range of those things, and they will vary from officer to officer.
 With regard to clause 28, there may be no common standard set but there may be a hundred different standards set depending on the number of officers, and there may be no performance standards set. In this day and age where management processes play an important role in the way in which an organisation operates I could not imagine that there would not be performance standards which would have to be met by these officers.
 Of course, it will become fairly cumbersome. Every time there is a modification to the performance standard it will have to be gazetted. Every time there is a change in the job description of a particular officer there will probably be new performance standards or amended performance standards. I think, with respect, that it is a nonsense but it is something we will have to debate later.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Perhaps the Attorney can explain to me how you can set standards for the police. It is a nonsenseó
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: No. Publishing in the Gazette is a nonsense, that's what I'm saying.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: I misunderstood you. Setting standards is a nonsense.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: It's not.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Yes it is, because you have a lot of smart criminals out there who are forever divining and devising new ways to get away with crime. Under those circumstances you would need a crystal ball to set perform-ance standards when that is what detecting crime is all aboutóhaving police who are prepared to spend time, energy and patience, particularly with white collar crime the way it is at the moment, ever more burgeoning as part of the whole componentry of criminality.
 Can the Attorney tell me how you can set performance standards in the police force? You are not talking about a factory where they are producing bricks or about a brewery where they are producing beer where you can set perform-ance standards. This is economic rationalism gone mad. Can the Attorney convince me of the logic of how you can set performance standards for any police force?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Of course you can. If you do not set standards and performance standards then you have to seriously ask where is the SA Police, or any police group, going. Of course you can set performance standards but you do not set it on the number of expiation notices you write, the number of armed robbers you might apprehend or the number of murderers you might arrest. That is not what it is all about. Performance standards do not, in any force of which I am aware, measure performance by that means.
 If you look at the sorts of performance standards which apply to Chief Executive Officers they are more principles than nitty-gritty detail. They talk about meeting your budget requirement; they may talk about the number of persons employed for particular tasks, budget integrity, financial management, lack of complaints, good relationships with members of the community and a whole range of those things. If this becomes an overwhelmingly important issue then I will undertake to get some more detail from the Commissioner. You can set performance standards and you should set performance standards, whether they are for members of the police or otherwise.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: That is the most wishy-washy explanation I have ever heard the Attorney give. He is generally a man who is very much on the ball, and I have much respect for him.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: For what?
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: For his integrity and his capacity to intellectually think. But I am afraid that on this occasion he has allowed himself to be swayed by an ideology with respect to his explanation that really goes beneath the question I am asking. You cannot compare the police force with any other occupation. How would you set a performance standard for lawyers, for example? How would you set a performance standard for GPs?
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: Here we are, the young barrister supremoóhe believesóis interjecting again. The question I am asking the Attorney is one that he has not answered, and he knows that he has not answered it. I think that the police force here is second to none in the Commonwealth, and is probably as good as any and may be better than most police forces in the English speaking world. It has an envious record, certainly in respect of serious crime, and some of the murder cases it has solved here have gone beyond the ken of belief. How do you set standards across the police force? The simple answer to my question is that you cannot because it is so different from other occupations with respect to the line of duty it has to undertake.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Has the Hon. Ian Gilfillan talked to the Police Association about this provision and specifically about publication in the Gazette?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: All the amendments that I propose were made available to the association and the Commissioner for comment. I assume from the comments that I have had back that they are content with this provision. I have not had any complaint.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: It surprises me that the Police Association would be happy to have this sort of thing published in the Gazette, and I say so for a number of reasons. The Attorney has said that performance standards can include things such as financial management, relation-ships with the community and the establishment of community liaison officers. They are general community performance standards and in some respects are motherhood statements. It concerns me that we can establish performance standards in certain policing activities which might be directed to the level of crime within a particular area or specific types of crime, and it may even go to having to determine that there is a sufficient level of crime for the amount of charges that are laid or prosecutions that are commenced or, indeed, the number of convictions that might be secured.
 In some cases, I think there might be an argumentó and I do not want to go down that track todayóas to whether that is appropriate or inappropriate. However, I have two con-cerns. I accept that it may be different for different police officers in different areas because there are different priori-ties, but I can see the publication of this in the Gazette being misused to the detriment of individual police officers.
 I will give examples. If I am an aggrieved citizen in a country town and I have obtained the performance standards for my local police officer, then I can create merry hell in the media, with my local politician, and even with some unscru-pulous members of the Opposition, dare I say, to apply enormous pressure on individual police officers. I am a little concerned that this might be allowed to be used for that purpose.
 We live in a very competitive world and the securing of positions within the police force is probably as competitive an environment as I have seen, and it would enable police officers to damage the reputation of their fellow officers. I am not sure that would be of assistance to the overall general morale of police in South Australia.
 The other issue that occurs to me is the role of defence lawyers. Depending on what is contained in these perform-ance standards and depending upon their publication in the Gazette, I would think they would be enormous fertile ground for defence counsel to cross-examine police officers. I will provide an example. If a certain level of police activity is required from a divisional commander or from an individual police officer and has not been met, it is not very difficult for defence counsel to say, `You are pinching my client (or this number of clients) because you do not look like meeting your performance standards and you will be in trouble.'
 It is a whole new line of cross-examination, and I foresee some of my former colleagues licking their lips as they open the Gazette on a day by day basis. I have no problem with performance standards, but I wonder whether the transparen-cy the honourable member is seeking will cause more problems to individual police officers than it will resolve. On the face of it, the Police Association does seem to want to look after its members and does seem to analyse each clause of this Bill in detail, and I would be very surprised if the association would expose its members to this sort of public disclosure by way of Gazette and expose its members to the potential for criticism that the honourable member's amend-ment would allow.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is probably not the most important amendment that the Hon. Ian Gilfillan is moving during this debate. Clause 28 of this Bill 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.
Now, clearly, there is a lot of misunderstanding as to exactly what those performance standards are. The protection afforded by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment is that if they are published there is transparency and we know exactly what the performance standards are. If a police officer has to meet these standards under law then should we not know what the standards are?
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, it does. It provides that as a condition of appointment the officer must meet these performance standards. There has been discussion as to what these standards are.
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I understand the point the Hon. Angus Redford is making, but I would have thought the police officers are exposed if they are required to meet standards which are not known except to the Commissioner.
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The CHAIRMAN: Order!
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Later, we will be discussing various police disciplinary measures. If a police officer can be disciplined for not meeting performance standards is it not appropriate that those performance standards be available? I think that part of the problem is that the Minister for Police in another place has not been able to provide much information as to what exactly these performance standards are. Perhaps if there was more information on it, this Bill would be a lot more acceptable. I would suggest that while it is a requirement that a police officer has to meet these standards, it is appropriate that they be transparent.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I have had the opportunity to employ people and I have actually written out the cheques for themóunlike the honourable member. Often, in an employer-employee relationship you have cause to speak to your staff for whatever reason. Often, you want to do that with some degree of privacy. This amendment brings it right out into the open. In an area as sensitive as policing, setting these performance standards and then throwing them out in the open runs the real risk of putting police officers in an unacceptable position. It may be that an individual police officer does not meet a particular performance standard and it may be that the superior officer says, `Look, I understand that.' But, I can tell members opposite that the media or defence counsel or certain aggrieved members of the public will not have that level of understanding and will not have that sympathetic approach to it.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan is hanging individual police officers out to dry. I do not think that is fair and I do not think it is appropriate, and I would urge the honourable member and the members opposite to rethink this amendment. I have no problems with performance standards but to publish them in the Gazetteóand there may be many different standards for different officersóexposes police officers in a very unfair and dangerous way.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have thought that, if the police officers were exposed, it would be because they could face disciplinary action if they do not meet perform-ance standards which are vague and unknown. I would have thought that was much more dangerous.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I cannot understand the concern of the Hon. Mr Gilfillan and the Opposition in relation to the provision in the Bill. They seem to be intent to hamper, restrict and constrain so there cannot be an effective management structure within SA Police. I think the Hon. Angus Redford raises some very valid points, and I hope the Opposition and Hon. Mr Gilfillan will give consider-ation to the way in which proper management can and should occur in SA Police. While it is a little risky to draw some analogies, let us look at other areas of the Public Service. The Opposition is intent, as is the Government, on ensuring there is no political patronage within the public sector.
Yet, in the contracts of executives, the chief executives are required to specify performance standards which the exec-utive level officers are required to meet. When that was discussed two or three years ago and we reached an agree-ment at the deadlock conference of the Public Sector Management Act, no-one said, `Let's require all the perform-ance standards for executive level public servants to be published in the Government Gazette.' When we have established very wide ranging inspectorial powers under occupational licensing and set performance standards for inspectors, no-one has required us to publish them in the Government Gazette. It is just not good management. It ties our hands and the whole system becomes extraordinarily bureaucratic. The National Parks and Wildlife inspectors have very wide powers where we require them to meet perform-ance standards. I suppose that, the next time that Act comes before us, on the basis of this precedent the Opposition and Democrats will move to require all their performance measures to be out in the public arena.
 We are going to an extreme of bureaucratic requirement which is largely unheard of and which will be detrimental to proper management. It may be that a suspicious mind is at work, but I draw attention to the fact that clause 10 is quite open about the principles and standards which the Commis-sioner must apply across the force. If they are not applied, they are the subject of public questioning in the Parliament and in Estimates Committees and ultimately by the association taking matters on judicial review.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Will the Attorney enlighten us about the exact nature of these performance standards and give us some examples of them?
 The Hon. A.J. Redford: He's already done that.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, in fairly general terms. I think it could be helpful if he could provide some details of what exactly might be required and in what form it would be required. Further, how would the police officer concerned be notified about these particular performance standards by which he or she is required to operate?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will take the question on notice. As far as I am aware, the notification process is quite straightforward, certainly at appointment and from time to time, and notified in writing as the requirements of a position may change. With regard to performance standards, I have given a general rundown on the sorts of areas that may apply. If I can get some more specific examples I will bring them back for the honourable member and hopefully that might then persuade him to withdraw from the present support he gives to this amendment. I recognise that as part of this process we build up a bank of amendments. We will work through those in the context of the deadlock conference and hopefully come out of it with something sensible.
 Amendment passed; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 29.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 12ó
  Line 17óLeave out `must not resign or relinquish official duties unless' and insert:
 may resign or relinquish official duties if
  Line 22óLeave out all words in this line.
This amendment, along with a couple of associated amend-ments, is designed to remove the punitive aspects of this clause. The Bill stipulates that a member of the SA Police must not resign or relinquish official duties unless the member is expressly authorised in writing by the Commis-sioner to do so or has given the Commissioner 14 days notice of intention to do so or is incapacitated by physical or mental disability or illness from performing official duties, and the maximum penalty for that is $1 250 or three months impris-onment. I am certainly not persuaded that that is a useful clause to retain in SA Police legislation. I will move a couple of amendments related to this, first, to provide the option that a member of the SA Police other than the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner may resign or relinquish official duties if the member observes the provisions that I have just read out. Also, I have moved to delete the penalty aspect of the clause.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports these two amendments. It seems to be rather draconian that in this day and age we would talk about fining a police officer $1 250 or make them face three months imprisonment if they resign without giving the Commissioner 14 days notice. Throughout the debate on this Bill we have heard that this is all to do with modern management, how we are to move into the twentieth century as far as management practices are concerned and how we no longer call the police force a `force', because it is moving way from its military structure. I would have thought that this is a rather draconian provision from the past, so we will support the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendments to remove it.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The amendments are opposed; the provision is exactly what is in the present Act. In my view and in the Government's view the resignation of members of SA Police does need to be regulated, to ensure that policing levels are maintained, for a variety of reasons, including catering for emergencies.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I would be grateful if the Attorney could advise this place of the existing provision in these circumstances and why there is a requirementó
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: The honourable member interjects. Quite frankly, on his and the shadow Minister's performance, about the only thing the honourable member has done is read the Bill; he has not put any thought into it. I return to my question. What is the rationale behind the insertion of this clause in the terms in which it has been inserted?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The present provision is in section 19, which provides that a member of the police force or a police cadet must not resign or relinquish official duties unless he or she is expressly authorised in writing by the Commissioner to do so or has given the Commissioner 14 days notice of intention to do so or is incapacitated by physical or mental disability or illness from performing official duties. A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence, the penalty being a Division 8 fine, which is $1 000, or Division 8 imprisonment, which is three months.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Why is it there?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I understand that it is there to ensure that the numbers are maintained. There are a number of possibilities. One I have already referred to; that is, you need to cater for an emergency with the numbers and not have an inappropriate resignation at an inappropriate time. If there is currently an investigation of an officer's actions or more particularly where that officer is involved or there is a court hearing on, these things have to be managed and the last thing you want to do is to have a sudden death cutoff where the Commissioner and all those others who depend upon that particular officer in any of those circumstances might be left high and dry.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Could the Attorney advise whether or not the existing equivalent sectionóI think it is section 19óhas been applied? What were the circumstances and the consequences? If there have not been any such examples, can the Attorney say whether the existence of such a clause may prevent the sort of problems to which he alluded briefly in answer to my previous question?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not have that information, but I will endeavour to obtain it.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Repeatedly this afternoon the Attorney has compared provisions in this Bill with those in other areas of the Public Service, in particular the Government Management Act. Is there any comparable provision in any other area of the Public Service where a public servant faces three months imprisonment or a fine in excess of $1 000 for not giving 14 days notice if they wish to resign?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am not aware of whether there are any other provisions, but if time allows I will have some inquiries made.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I would have thought that there is a need for this sort of provision. One only has to look at what drastic consequences might flow from a police officer suddenly deciding mid investigation or mid emergency to walk out. I would be highly surprised if ordinary police officers had any objection to this clause, because it is as much for the protection of each other as it is for anybody else. It is as much for the protection of one police officer being exposed to danger because the other police officer walks out as it is for any other purpose. It is as much for the protection of a police officer who might be assisting in the course of a serious investigation if the other police officer should walk out without notice and without permission.
 If you spoke to the ordinary rank and file police officer and said, `Look, this is designed to provide a sanction if your fellow officer does not behave in a certain way,' I would be surprised if they did not agree with that, because in some cases the failure to comply with that (bearing in mind that we are looking at a maximum penalty here) could cause enor-mous problems not just for the Commissioner, the police in general or their high reputation but also for the safety and confidence of their fellow officers. I know that some of the others to whom I have spoken in relation to this provision have never heard of it being invoked, but when you explain it to them they say, `I am happy it is there.' That is what has been communicated to me by individual police officers.
 Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clauses 30 to 34 passed.
 Clause 35.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 14ó
  Line 11óLeave out `must not resign or relinquish official duties unless' and insert:
 may resign or relinquish official duties if
  Line 16óLeave out all words after this line.
I move both these amendments. They are identical in purpose to clause 29 with which we have just dealt.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Government opposes the amendments.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendments. I take this opportunity to make one comment to the Hon. Angus Redford in view of his earlier comments. It is touching that the honourable member now shows a great deal of concern for police officers showing respect to one another by not walking out. I would have thought the whole point of this Bill that his colleague and friend the Minister for Police introduced was to remove completely all the condi-tions. If ever one were to undermine the loyalty and integrity of the police force, it would have been if this Bill had gone through in its original form. It is nice to see that at least on this matter the honourable member does understand the need for a bit of loyalty and solidarity in the police force.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I am grateful for the Hon. Paul Holloway's last comment, because there is a major difference between the way in which I have approached this Bill and the way in which the ALP has approached this Billóand I exempt the Hon. Ian Gilfillan from this comment. The shadow Minister has not done his homework and has played politics all the way through. The Labor Party has been flip-flopping around all the way through. The honourable member has not done his homework and has not thought his way through it. The Labor Party has hung on to the shirt tails of the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and hoped that that might skate it through with some degree of credibility. The fact of the matter and the reality is that the ALP has not done so. Members opposite have had egg on their faces all the way through this Committee stage debate.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: For the benefit of the Hon. Angus Redford who, clearly, was not here earlier, when we began the debate today on clause 1, I explained to him how the Hon. Ian Gilfillan had listed amendments to this Bill several weeks ago. Rather than listing identical amendments to a number of these clauses, the Opposition decided that it would support the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's amendments. I explained that earlier.
 Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.  Clauses 36 to 41 passed.
 Clause 42.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 18, line 5óAfter `seniority' insert:
  or relocation to a place so distant as to unduly disrupt the member's family life.
This is an attempt to soften the potential effect on a police officer's life in terms of relocation, which is a form of punishment accepted by the Democrats as an option for the Commissioner to exercise. The clause deals with the transfer of a member and provides:
 . . . for not more than four months to another position in SA Police (not involving a reduction in rank or seniority).
The amendment provides that a transfer will not disrupt unduly the member's family life. Depending on the life of that particular officer, the actual impact of this relatively low level disciplinary measure could vary enormously.
This would depend, of course, on the life of that officerówhether or not he or she is single or has school going children, family or other commitments within a certain area. As this is not seen as a penalty for a serious offence, it seems appropriate that we should modify it.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I was not aware of this amendment until the new set of amendments came onto the file just before we began to consider this Bill in Committee. Just reflecting aloud, I suppose it will mean in practice that there will have to be an inquiry into the officer's family affairs.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: Only if there is a protest on the matter.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am talking about the principle. Even if there is a protest, it will mean that to be able properly to determine whether or not there will be undue disruption to the member's family life, if a transfer is made, there will have to be a process which will enable the Com-missioner to obtain all the facts upon which that judgment can be made. To a large extent it will be a subjective decision. What might be a so-called undue disruption to one member's family life might not be for another. What does `family life' mean? Does it mean that, for a single police officer who has a friend who might even be a fiancee, moving that officer to some other location would be an infringement on that officer's family life? Is a family represented in a de facto relationship? This raises a whole range of questions which are not easy to resolve. I wonder whether a police officer subject to discipline under this provision will want to disclose at the time when the Commissioner makes the decision all of his or her affairs which might relate to so-called family life so that the Commissioner can then make an appropriate decision.
 I am prepared to reflect upon the issue further. I do not indicate Government support for the amendment, although I am inclined to oppose it because I think it will be impos-sible fairly to administer and it raises more questions than those for which it provides answers.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition will support the amendment moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. I would not have thought it was any more difficult to judge than some of the other provisions listed under what is, after all, `minor misconduct'. The section we are dealing with is minor misconduct and we are dealing with possible penalties, and I would not have thought it was any harder to judge the qualification put in by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan than it was in other sections.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: You cannot do it under the Bill if it involves a reduction in rank or seniority. They are objective facts that you can judge. The amendment brings a subjective judgment to the decision making process and involves intrusion into the family affairs of an officer.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The point that the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and the Opposition would like to make is that there be no abuse of the transfer provisions for a minor misconduct. If the Bill is going to a conference, the details of that can be discussed because this matter is not important enough to warrant a lengthy debate here. We support the amendment at this stage.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I understand what the honourable member is seeking to achieve. Because there is a subjective element to it (I am not sure how you can avoid that), there may be a need for some undertaking to be given in terms of general orders or instructions by the Commission-er as to how this will be applied: that the people making this sort of decision would take into account the disruption to the member's family life in determining a transfer. That is another option. I am not moving anything, but it might be something that could be considered at the appropriate time.
 The Hon. T. CROTHERS: While we are on the subject of the transfer of officers, the Attorney might like to take my question on notice. In this age of high unemployment and two income families (and there is a provision which relates to interference with families), what are the Attorney's views about an officer's husband or wife having to give up employ-ment, as a result of a transfer, because this could cause a considerable income loss to the officer's wife, particularly if it is a probationary or junior constable receiving a low level of remuneration? Allowances are paid to the police for country transfers. As the transfer of an officer may cause his spouse to resign his or her employment, does the Attorney believe that, bearing in mind the transfer provisions and the nature of duties that police are called on to undertake across the State, the levels of remuneration should be uplifted where an officer's spouse has to give up his or her employment? Such an increase would reflect a component part of the duties of a police officer.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The answer is `No,' but we are not talking about that here: we are talking about minor misconduct and about a transfer for no more than four months to another position in SA Police. The issue which I am raising and which the Hon. Paul Holloway has identified is a position that raises questions about how practical is the amendment moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. We will look at it again. The Hon. Mr Holloway says that he is prepared to look at it, and I accept that. We will do it later.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 43.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 18, line 23óAfter `determined' insert `(in a non-discretion-ary way)'.
The amendment is an attempt to make sure that, where there is a review procedure, the person hearing the review is selected at arm's length from the Commissioner, who has made the determination against which there is an appeal or review.
Subclause (3) provides:
 An application for review under this section must be made to a member of SA Police determined under the regulations within the period and in the manner prescribed by the regulations.
My amendment is to include, after `determined' on the second line of subclause (3), `(in a non-discretionary way)'. It is a lead for the amendment to ensure as far as is possible that the reviewing SA Police officer has been selected not by direct personal selection by the Commissioner but by some other process of selection which, as far as is possible, ensures the appellant, the person who is seeking the review, a fair and independent hearing.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not understand what the honourable member is on about, and I do not see why I should agree to an amendment about which he says, `There has to be some other way of doing it.' If he can identify a proper mechanism by which this can be done, I am prepared to give some consideration to it. But at present, I oppose the amendment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment. I understand what the Hon. Ian Gilfillan is getting at. If there is a more preferable way of doing it later, we will all look at it.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: The Opposition's position is an absolute nonsense: they just continue to stand up and support everything. The clause provides that it can be determined under the regulations. The regulations come to this place and to the Lower House and, if you want to disallow them, you can. Why not deal with it when the regulations come up? I am not even sure what it means to add `(in a non-discretionary way)' under the regulations. At the end of the day, if you put that in, what does that do? It does nothing, because the regulations will still come here to be reviewed. The honourable member well knows that that is what happens. It does not add anything. It is just yet another example of the performance of the ALP on this debate.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clauses 44 to 46 passed.
 
 [Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 7.45 p.m.]
 
 Clause 47.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 21, line 3óAfter `position' (second occurring) insert:
 `(and such transfer may be permanent or for a specified term)'
Subclause (1) provides:
 The Commissioner may, without conducting selection processes, transfer a member of SA Police from the member's current position to another position.
My amendment seeks to make plain the actual transfer period.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: What does the honourable member want to achieve by this? It is not clear to me why we need to add any words. If I have missed something, I would like to know.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It is unlikely that the Attorney will have missed very much of significance, but this may be an occasion where he has. The transfer may be the result of an amiable agreement or it may not. It is important that there be a clarification when this transfer process goes through whether it is for a set time at the end of which there is a return to the previous position or an alternative appoint-ment, or whether it is a transfer of a permanent nature. As can be seen from the power of this subclause, the Commissioner may do this without conducting selection processes, so it is very much a determining power of the Commissioner. In my opinion, it is reasonable that, when that decision is made, it be clearly specified whether it is for a specific period or for an indefinite period.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not think this amend-ment is necessary. I do not support it, but I will not go to the wall on it. I merely draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the reference to the word `permanent' can conjure up all sorts of consequences. One is that the officer may be transferred to a particular position until retirement. Does `permanent' mean `never to be shifted again'? The honour-able member will have to give attention to those sorts of issues.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am not sure whether the amendment is necessary. However, I do not think it takes away from anything.
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes. I thank the Hon. Angus Redford for his assistance. Whilst the amendment may not add anything, it clarifies the available options. So, at this stage the Opposition supports it.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It may not be clarification if there is to be a dispute about what `permanent' means. I would have thought that it was implicit in the provision in the Bill that the transfer could be either to another position for a specified term or to another position for an indefinite term, but the suggestion of a permanent transfer raises all the uncertainties to which I have referred.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: This amendment may have some significance in relation to the Government's proposed amendment to clause 49(c) in which transfers are referred to as a punishment. I am prepared to acknowledge that we may have gone through this with too fine a toothcombóI do not apologise for that; that is our jobóbut through this amend-ment the Government is obviously proposing that the transfers can be punishment.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis: I hope you remember that when we come to the ETSA Bill.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: We will deal with that in due course, but because a transfer is to be determined by the Commissioner without any selection processes and is open ended as to the time that that transfer is to take place, I think the amendment is reasonable. The Commissioner still retains the power, but the person who is transferred at least has an indication of whether it is to be a permanent transfer or for a specified period. I think this amendment is worthy of consideration and does not lessen the Commissioner's power.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 21ó
  Lines 8 and 9óLeave out `, subject to subsection (5) and any general orders of the Commissioner,'.
  Line 10óLeave out `general orders' and insert `regulations'.
This amendment is to delete certain words from subclause (4) of clause 47, which deals with the power to transfer. Sub-clause (4) provides:
 A member of SA Police aggrieved by a transfer of that member under this section may, subject to subsection (5) and any general orders of the Commissioner, apply to have his or her grievance dealt with in accordance with a process specified in the general orders.
It is my intention to delete the qualification `subject to subsection (5) and any general orders of the Commissioner' and to ensure that the process specified in the general orders is specified in the regulations. Our view is that a police officer aggrieved by a transfer decision should have an unfettered capacity to have that grievance dealt with by way of a due and proper process.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Bearing in mind that the regime for dealing with regulations in this Parliament enables them to be disallowed by either House, what sort of regula-tions will the honourable member support? It might be of assistance to me and the Government to know what the honourable member envisages as a regime that might be promulgated under regulations that would be acceptable to him. Does the honourable member think that it would be acceptable to have a process in the regulations that might be applicable to appointments for a specified period and a different set of processes that might be applicable to an appointment for a specified term?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I am not sure whether my answer will completely cover the points raised by the Hon. Angus Redford, but the general pattern of our ap-proach is, where possible, to move the conditions that are offered in this legislation from an arbitrary determination because we think it is necessary that the Parliament have an opportunity to review. The actual move to regulations is not so much because the Parliament will determine the regula-tionsóbecause rarely does the Parliament do thatóbut it does have access to them. Where an argument may be sustained that those regulations are too onerous, unfair or inadequate, Parliament should have the right to have them reviewed.
 This is more than just normal day-to-day, bit by bit management. This is designed to comprehend a decision which could be quite a severe form of punishment or disruption of a police officer's career. It appears to usóand we have been consistent in this respect right through our amendmentsóthat it is safer to have them spelt out in regulations than just left in general orders.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not follow the honourable member's reference to `punishment', because a later amend-ment deals with a transfer on the basis of its being believed to be punishmentóand the review process applies in that context. I do not follow that argument in support of the honourable member's amendment. The amendment is opposed by the Government.
 This amendment anticipates the honourable member's proposed amendment to strike out subclause (5). The Government does not agree to the striking out of sub-clause (5) on the basis that if a person accepts an appointment or a transfer for a specified period one must ask why that person should have access to a grievance process if he or she is transferred at the end of that period. It makes a nonsense of the process.
 We also object to the deletion of the reference to general orders on the basis that general orders can appropriately specify particular processes. I would have thought that they would be in the interests of serving police officers rather than being adverse to their interests, particularly as the principles set out in clause 10 relating to general management aims and standards will have to be reflected in the general orders in any event. If they are not, it may well be that the general orders are subject to judicial review. So, this amendment is opposed, as will be the amendment which seeks to delete subclause (5) for the reasons I have indicated.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The question of the power of the Police Commissioner to transfer officers has been one of those key sticking points with this Bill. After we dispatch this clause we will be dealing with changes to part 8 of the Bill which will insert a number of new provisions to deal with transfers. The reason why transfers are such an important part of this Bill is that, as anyone who followed the situation in Queensland under the former corrupt Police Commissioner Terry Lewis would know, the transfer of police officers was the mechanism that was used to entrench corruption in that police force.
 In that case the Liquor Licensing Branch was the area to which those officers who were part of the scam, if I can call it that, were transferred and honest officers were transferred out. We are not suggesting that that situation will occur in South Australia, but we are saying that there should be some protection against the misuse of transfers. So the approach to both this clause and the following clause is to put in protections. The amendments the Hon. Ian Gilfillan has moved to this clause we see as being complementary to the amendments that we will be moving shortly to part 8. The Opposition supports the amendments.
 The Hon. L.H. Davis interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Legh Davis wasn't here. If I have to explain it for a third time I will. I suggest that he should read the comments that I made at the start of this debate and he will understand why.
 Members interjecting:
 The PRESIDENT: Order!
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to transfers, we believe that the general orders are proposed under the Bill should be regulations because that provides us with the additional protection and scrutiny that is offered by regula-tions because they are subject to disallowance by both Houses of Parliament. Given that there has been a situation in Queensland where transfers have been abused, I would have thought that it was not in any way an unreasonable position that we should try to put some checks and balances on this matter.
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am sure that the Hon. Angus Redford, with his brilliant legal career, will tell us all about it. I am sure that he will be only too willing, as he always is, to share with us the benefit of his great knowledge and experience in this matter. Perhaps he can tell us what they do in Queensland. Nevertheless, I suspect that whatever they now do in Queensland is entirely immaterial to the point.
 Given that transfers have been abused in the past it is an area where there should be some checks and balances in the system. The amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan does nothing more than that. Regardless of what they might be doing elsewhere it is the view of the Opposition that it is an entirely reasonable position to adopt in relation to this Bill given the experience that we have seen in other parts of the country. We will support the amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not accept the points which the honourable member has made. I draw attention to the fact that there will be an amendment, which we will deal with later, that deals with transfer reviews other than in relation to misconduct, particularly where a member believes that he or she is being punished for a particular conduct. So we have that provision there. If an officer believes that he or she is harshly done by by reason of punishment then there will be a mechanism for dealing with that. I would have thought that that was more than adequate.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: It's not in the Bill.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: But it will be.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: My experience when I had some involvement in my professional capacity with the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service was that this sort of regime was dealt with in what they described as the Standard Administrative Procedures, which is a fairly thick booklet and which was developed after a degree of consultation between the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer and, in those days, the two relevant unions. During the development of these procedures there was a good deal of discussion and give and take.
 Notwithstanding that, I recall giving advice on a number of occasions in quick fire, following having dealt with a couple of these things, to change the Standard Administrative Procedures. That was done very quickly and simply and in a very straightforward manner. The problem with dealing with it by way of regulation is that it tends to make it so structured and fixed that it is difficult for changes to be made to reflect problems that might arise when dealing with this sort of issue.
 At the end of the day this new power to transfer and the whole regime in relation to transfer is quite different from what currently prevails. I am not sure that I have enough confidence in the way in which regulations are developed to say, if this is accepted, that we will get it perfectly right on the first occasion, and then we have to go through a whole new process to change regulations. That is a cumbersome process.
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: General orders are not. The honourable member keeps interjecting. As I said by way of interjection, I do not know why the Australian Labor Party cannot be honest about this, pat the member for Elder on the back for a lovely, flowery speech, although it was not based on a lot of analysis, hand its proxy vote over to the Australian Democrats so we can have a decent, high level debate on this issue.
 What amazes me about the Hon. Paul Holloway's comments is that he only has one written instruction, and that is to agree with the Australian Democrats. We are extremely impressed on this side of Chamber that, to an untrained observer, he can look like he is holding a debate together. At the end of the day it would be of far more assistance if, on each occasion, he just said, `I agree with the Australian Democrats', and allowed us to deal with someone who has applied his mind to this Bill, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. As a disinterested observer on this side of the Chamber I must say that it is stark. The Australian Labor Party has not done any homework on this and the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, with his limited resources, has run rings around it.
 Amendments carried.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 21, lines 11 to 14óLeave out subclause (5).
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Heading.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I move:
 Page 22, line 2óAfter "TERMINATION" insert:
 , TRANSFER
Inserting the word `TRANSFER' in the heading of part 8 foreshadows a later amendment which will provide for a review of certain transfers.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition supports the amendment. This was the outcome of negotiations with the Police Association. We believe that it will beó
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, this is your amend-ment. I would have thought that the Hon. Angus Redford would be pleased that we are supporting it.
 Amendment carried.
 Clauses 48 and 49 passed.
 New clauses 49A, 49B and 49C.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I move:
 Page 22, after line 19óInsert new clauses as follows:
 Reasons for decision
 49A. The Police Review Tribunal must, at the request of the applicant before the Tribunal or the Commissioner made within seven days after the Tribunal has made a decision on review under this Division, give reasons in writing for the decision.
 Appeal from decision of Tribunal
 49B.(1) Following a decision by the Tribunal under this Division, the applicant before the Tribunal or the Commissioner may appeal to the Court against the decision.
  (2) An appeal under this section must be instituted within one month of the making of the Tribunal's decision, but the Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just and reasonable in the circumstances to do so, dispense with the requirement that the appeal be instituted within that period.
  (3) On an appeal under this section, the Court may do one or more of the following:
   (a) confirm the decision;
   (b) quash the decision;
   (c) remit the matter to the Commissioner for reconsider-ation;
   (d) make any further or other order as to costs or any other matter that the case requires.
  (4) No further appeal lies against a decision of the Court made on an appeal under this section.
  (5) In this sectionó
`Court' means the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court.
 Review of certain transfers
 49C.(1) Ifó
   (a) a decision is made to transfer a member of SA Police to another position (other than under Part 6 or section 46); and
   (b) the member believes that he or she is being punished for particular conduct,
    the member may apply to the Police Review Tribunal for a review of the decision.
  (2) An application for review of the decision must be made to the Secretary to the Tribunal within the period and in the manner prescribed by regulation.
  (3) The Tribunal may in an appropriate case dispense with the requirement that the application be made within the prescribed period.
  (4) If, on an application for review of a decision under this Division, the Tribunal is satisfied that the transfer is in the nature of a punishment, the Tribunal may do one or more of the following:
   (a) quash the decision;
   (b) remit the matter to the Commissioner for reconsider-ation;
   (c) make recommendations for settlement of the matter.
New clauses 49A and 49B provide for an appeal from a decision of the Police Review Tribunal to terminate a person's appointment during a period of probation or for unsatisfactory performance. The appeal is to the Administra-tive and Disciplinary Division of the District Court. New clause 49C provides for the Police Review Tribunal to review a transfer other than a transfer for unsatisfactory performance or under Part 6 where the member believes that he or she is being punished.
 The Commissioner must have the flexibility to transfer members. It would, however, be wrong for a transfer to be used as a means of punishing a member. Section 24A of the present Act provides for a review by the Police Disciplinary Tribunal of a transfer where a member believes that he or she is being punished. This amendment restores the status quo.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I hope the Hon. Angus Redford is delighted at the ALP's piggybacking on the back of the Government's amendments. No doubt, there will be some bouquets flourishing in the Chamber! I believe that this is satisfactory amendment, which came relatively late on the scene. It was not in the original Bill. Therefore, the Demo-crats had to analyse what we saw as the Bill as it came into this Chamber. On that basis it was important to move the amendments which we moved earlier and which were successful. I am signalling that we will support these amendments and that therefore there will need to be some adjustment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I indicated in the earlier clause that we were supporting this measure. These are complementary to the debate we had earlier. As I said, the transfer of police officers was one of the key sticking points and I understand that these amendments were derived from extensive negotiations. We are pleased that those negotiations finally took place. Of course, they should have taken place before the Bill ever came into this Parliament.
 New clauses 49A, 49B and 49C inserted.
 Clause 50 passed.
 Clause 51.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 22, line 29óLeave out `general orders of the Commissioner' and insert `regulations'.
I will speak to this amendment and it also applies to my next amendment to clause 52(3), which I will move without speaking to it. In this case, and it is a repeat of earlier argument, we are convinced that for confidence in the process and transparency of the process, regulations are a very valuable implementation of legislation in this place. Under processes for appointment or nomination for prescribed promotional positions, 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. . .
My amendment deletes `general orders of the Commissioner' and replaces that with `regulations'.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: For the reasons I have already indicated in relation to the honourable member's amendment to clause 11, both amendments are opposed.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I put the Opposition's position on previous clauses relating to general orders. We will be supporting this amendment.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 52.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 23, line 6óLeave out `general orders of the Commissioner' and insert `regulations'.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Government opposes the amendment.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 53.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
 Page 23, after line 15óInsert:
 (ab) that the applicant for the review should have been selected based on a proper assessment of the respective merits of the applicants; or
Clause 53 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. . .
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that merit will continue to be a factor in the review process. In the second reading debate, there seemed to be some disagreement between the Attorney-General and myself as to whether or not the clause was confusing. I still hold to the view that it is confusing in its original wording, and I am moving this amendment to clarify it. Paragraph (a) provides:
 that the member selected is not eligible for appointment to the position; or
I seek to insert:
 (ab) that the applicant for the review should have been selected based on a proper assessment of the respective merits of the applicants; or
The clause continues:
 (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. . .
I will be moving that the next two lines be totally deleted because they appear to be contradictory even with the original wording of the Bill, and I quote:
 and may not be made merely on the basis that the Tribunal should redetermine the respective merits of the applicant and the member selected.
I do not want to belabour the point too much, but that does appear to me to be diminishing, if not totally eliminating, the fact of merit which could be a significant part of the grounds for the application for review. Both these amendments are aimed at rewording that clause to ensure that the basis of merit will retain as a factor in any application for review.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: This is another key provision, and the Government opposes strenuously the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan. Clause 53 gives the same rights of appeal against promotion decisions as public servants have under section 43 of the Public Sector Manage-ment Act. The honourable member may not recall, but in 1993 he actually supported a provision similar to that which is in this Bill, when the Hon. Robert Lucas moved an amendment to the Government Management and Employ-ment Act. The Hon. Ian Gilfillan actually supported that amendment, which focused upon the process and removed the provision for appeals on the basis of merit.
 The Government does not accept that there should be a redetermination of the relative merits of the various appli-cants for a position. If the selection panel has made a decision on the relative merits, we believe that that should stand and should not be grounds for an appeal. However, if there are process irregularities, that is, nepotism or patronage or some serious defect, there should be an appeal. This provides for flexibility: appointments are not delayed by appeals which have no hope of succeeding, but there is fair play. You have to recognise that under the present system as there was under the old Public Service Act there is a whole log jam of appeals where an unsuccessful applicant for a position sought to challenge the decision of the determining body on the basis of merit.
 So, rather than relying upon the judgment of the person or body which made the decision about who was the best person for that job, that responsibility was effectively removed by an appeal process, which many people followed for the purpose of giving it a fling to determine whether or not they could convince a panel or review body that they were better for the job than someone else. So, it was substituting the decision of a review body for the decision of the original determining body. This creates a log jam, and it can have a huge adverse impact upon morale and can create disenchant-ment.
 One of the things we have noticed with the Public Sector Management Process is that there are some appeals on the basis of the process being inappropriate, but everybody can get on with the job. The person who has been selected on the basis of merit is able to get into that position, and everybody can get on with their lives. If we get back to what the Hon. Mr Gilfillan now wants, which is different from what he supported in 1993 in relation to public servants, we will just accentuate the potential for a log jam and allow people to play games.
 As I have said so many times during this debate, the underpinning fundamentals of this legislation are set out in clause 10 of this Bill, where the principles exist and, if a serious challenge is made to the application of the principles, there is still an opportunity for judicial review. Under this provision the selection processes for filling positions have to be based on a proper assessment of merit. There is no doubt that when you have a selection panel on occasions there will be differing views about who should get the job based on merit, but ultimately it is a matter of judgment.
 It seems to me that if we are to have a proper and effective management structure we must ultimately make decisions based upon those principles of a proper assessment of merit and not try to second guess or challenge the decisions that have been made, unless there is a fundamental flaw in the selection process itself. That is what we are trying to reflect here. One has to ask, why should the police be any different from other servants of the public? If it has been good enough as a result of the 1993 Government Management Act and the later Public Sector Management Act to focus on process as a basis for appeals, why should it not be adequate in this instance?
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We support the amendment moved by the Democrats. It is interesting that on this clause the Attorney is using the argument that the police are no different from other public servants. Just before the dinner break, when we were discussing clause 29, dealing with resignations, we had the reverse argument.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: When I asked him a question the Attorney conceded that such a provision applies in no other part of the Public Service. It is a bit difficult for the Attorney to have it both ways. The police force is a different institution; we all understand that. It seems to me that if we are to have a system of promotion reviews it should be able to operate and there should be some reasonable grounds on which the system can operate. We do not believe that the clause that the Hon. Ian Gilfillan seeks to insert should unduly overwhelm the review system. After all, he is merely saying that one of the grounds for an application for the review of a promotion should be that the applicant for the review should have been selected based on a proper assess-ment of the respective merits of the applicant. As far as the Opposition is concerned it is not unreasonable that a review process should take those grounds into consideration, so we support the amendment.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Attorney keeps referring to the holy clause 10 as if that were a cure-all, catch-all and general salve for all problems that might arise in the SA Police. That is rather naive; that is not a common failing of the Attorney-General, but on this occasio