Consideration in Committee of the House of Assembly's message.
  The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I move:
 That the Council do not insist on its amendment No. 1 but agree to the alternative amendment.
That alternative amendment has been circulated. It essentially adopts the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan in respect of the burden of proof in disciplinary matters and with the reduction of that burden of proof from the criminal standard of proving beyond reasonable doubt to the civil standard of proving misconduct on the balance of probabili-ties. The Hon. Mr Gilfillan moved that the Commissioner should give to the Police Review Tribunal an intimation of the likely penalty that would be imposed by the Commis-sion-er if the tribunal finds the member guilty. The honourable member was arguing that that would assist the application of the Briginshaw principle about the standard of proof actually to be applied. There was concern on the part of the Govern-ment about that, because it tended to suggest that, once the Commissioner had given that indication, it was immutable. Notwithstanding that at the tribunal hearing other facts might be elicited that would change the Commissioner's view about the appropriateness of the penalty previously indicated, the Commissioner would not be able to make any change to that early intimation of penalty. That has now been overcome, and my understanding is that what we now have before us is what was always intended, that is, that the Commissioner is to give an indication to the tribunal as to which of certain categories of punishment, which are defined, the Commissioner considers would on the facts then known to the Commission-er most likely be appropriate if the tribunal finds the member guilty of the breach of discipline. So, it does not make the Commissioner's intimation immutable. It can be varied if new facts come to light.
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Members will recall that when this matter came before the Legislative Council it was the Opposition's view that we should retain `beyond reasonable doubt' as the level of proof when dismissal of an officer of the South Australian Police Force was the penalty. We were unsuccessful in our endeavours in that regard but did support the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's amendment, which was at least better than nothing, we thought. As a result of further negotiations, there has been a slight clarification of that amendment moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. We understand that the Police Association and other interested parties are happy with this change, so we see know reason to oppose it.
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I support the reworded amendment. It is improved wording and clarifies the intention and dispels some fears about the way in which it could have been misinterpreted, and I hope that it will offer the South Australian Police Association some sense that they will get an appropriate and fair hearing in front of the tribunal, relative to the seriousness of the offence for which they are accused, with the Commissioner being obliged to give an indication of the penalty level. There has been a minor adjustment in the contents of the categories (a), (b) and (c). I do not intend to go through those, but they were rather creditably picked up by Parliamentary Counsel and approved by the Police Association. So, it is with some satisfaction that I am able to say that both the Police Association and, obviously, the Opposition have agreed that the wording is improved. Therefore, I am confident that it is an acceptable compromise to the Bill.
 Motion carried.

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design