Adjourned debate on second reading.
 
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats support the second reading of the Bill, which is a contemporary measure, the more substantial Police Bill that we have dealt with being scheduled for conference. This Bill deals more specifically, as is said in its bracketed title, with complaints and disciplin-ary procedures. I do not intend to speak at length about the substance of the Bill, which has been explained quite clearly in the report. To a large extent it is non-contentious.
In the case of the amendment to section 32, the Bill is a matter of clarification and facilitates a clearer legislative direction to the Police Complaints Authority. However, the amendment to section 39 is a relatively substantial matter, to which I will return for the main substance of my contribution. The amendment to section 48 restricts access to the Police Complaints Authority's files to preserve privacy where it is reasonable to be done and, in fact, it appears to be clearly and reasonably done in these circumstances.
 The other amendment, to section 46, allows appeals to go to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court instead of the Supreme Court. I do not have any problem with that. We have a totally competent and adequate level of jurisdiction in the District Court to deal with matters of appeal. In fact, one of the more recent appeals at the Supreme Court has triggered off to an extent part of the debate about where the Commissioner of Police has selected a penalty for an offence which the offending officer regards as too harsh. In such a case, that person can take the matter to the Supreme Court.
In the case of a female police officer who had misrepresented her age in a sporting contest, her penalty of termination was overturned by the Supreme Court and she was reinstated in the force.
 Concern has been expressed by the Police Association and serving police officers that there must be an adequate and, should I say, sensitive appeal process to provide an opportunity for the reversal of what could arguably be too harsh a penalty imposed for an offence. So far, so good, but it is tricky to get the right balance.
 The Democrats believe that the Commissioner should have the power to discipline and control the force. There are circumstances where some alleged offences, misdemeanours and cases of misconduct would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove beyond reasonable doubt within the normal bounds of the criminal requirement. Therefore, there has been a move to accept that most alleged offences can be established on the balance of probabilities. This Bill introduces that concept into the context of an appeal even in respect of the termination of employment.
 I have had extensive discussions with the Police Association and some discussions with the Police Commis-sioner, both having been good enough to share ideas with me on this matter. The Opposition has on file an amendment which deals with the requirement that, prior to the hearing of a matter, the Commissioner should signal the likelihood or otherwise of termination of employmentóin other words `the sack'óbeing a possible or likely penalty if the alleged offender was found guilty.
 So that the Council understands the variation which I am considering, I refer to the amendment which is proposed by the Hon. Paul Holloway and which seeks to insert after section 39(2) the following paragraph:
 (2a) The Commissioner or person representing the Commissioner in proceedings before the tribunal must, at the commencement of the proceedings, indicate to the tribunal the punishment that the Commissioner considers would be appropriate if the tribunal finds the member guilty of the breach of discipline.
The end result of that amendment would be to change the criterion of guilt or innocence from the balance of probabilities to beyond a reasonable doubt where the Commissioner considers that an offence may possibly be punishable by termination of employment.
 I am not persuaded that that is the best way in which to proceed. I have asked Parliamentary Counsel to draft an amendment which would still require the Commissioner or the person representing the Commissioner in proceedings before the tribunal to give an indication of the category of punishment. It is my aim through that amendment to have the category of punishment included in the Act so that there will be a guide for the tribunal as to the possible degree of severity of penalty that the sentencing officer (in this case the Commissioner, because the tribunal only finds guilt or innocence) might impose.
 The argument in support of this amendment is that the tribunal is susceptible to variation (consciously or subconsciously) in the diligence with which it pursues the balance of probabilities if it believes the offence to be `a hanging offence' compared with a trifling offence where the penalty may be relatively minor. So, the justification for it through this rather convoluted process and in an attempt to retain the authority of the Commissioner to determine the sentence, which I believe is appropriate, is that that should be able to be caught up by my amendment. The only obligation on the Commissioner will be to signal to the tribunal prior to the hearing in what category the alleged offence should fit.
 That amendment should soon be on file for members to examine in detail. Nothing will please everyone totally. I hope that it provides a workable procedure which will allay the fears of the Police Association and serving police officers that their hearing will get a less than full and thorough assessment and that officers stand the risk of their career being terminated without a proper hearing at appeal.
 My final remarks in relation to this Bill go back again to the significance of this whole major legislative reform of SA Police. We do not accept the frequently commented on observation that there are similarities or dissimilarities with the Public Service Act as an argument for or against certain amendments. According to the Government, the police should be embraced in the catch-all legislation that deals with the Public Service across the board.
 SA Police is a distinctly different entity that provides a unique service to the community, and it is run close to military lines. I have had cause to ring the department in the past few days, and I have regularly and consistently been referred to as `Sir'. I must say that is a wild exception from all other sections of the Public Service.
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Did you like it or not?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Well, no, it stunned me a bit. I would much prefer to be rather amiably referred to as `Ian', which is the normal response I get when I track through any of the other departments that I have rung lately. I think they call me `Ian' because they find it difficult to pronounce `Gilfillan', which is not as commonly known as it used to be. However, that is an aside.
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I like that sort of chummy thing, especially because I am a politician for the people. It has a good ring to it.
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: But you are still not getting the service you want?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Yes, I am. I have no complaints aboutó
 The Hon. G. Weatherill interjecting:
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I reckon you would sing it pretty well, too, George. Mr Acting President, I am being diverted by some entertaining but irrelevant interjections. I conclude by re-emphasising the point that SA Police is a separate dedicated entity which should not lean on general public sector legislation and procedures in respect of its conduct. It is important that the Commissioner has a strong hand to play in running the force.
 I believe that this measure and the way in which the other Bill has been amended will allow that ability of the Commissioner to be retained very significantly in SA Police and that it will also allow serving police officers to feel protected by an adequate and just system of appeal. I hope that, on balance, both these Bills will allow SA Police to go from strength to strength and to serve the people of South Australia admirably. I support the second reading.
 
 The Hon. G. WEATHERILL secured the adjournment of the debate.