Legislative Council
POLICE ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH: POSSIBLE AMALGAMATION
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief
explanation before asking the Minister for Police, Correctional Services and Emergency
Services a question in relation to amalgamation of the Anti-Corruption Branch and the
Internal Investigation Branch.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Information given to me from several
sources, one of which is involved in enterprise bargaining in the Police Department, is
that the Police Department is considering an amalgamation of the Anti-Corruption Branch
and the Internal Investigation Branch. I have been told that this is under active
consideration as a cost cutting measure occasioned by the Government's $4 million
reduction in this year's police budget. The Anti-Corruption Branch is presently housed
independently at Rose Park, away from other police units and branches. Savings in rent
would be made by collocating it with the Internal Investigations Branch at Police
Headquarters in Flinders Street.
I am concerned, and concern has been expressed to me, about what this proposed
amalgamation would mean for the functions currently performed by these two bodies.
Corrup-tion does not necessarily involve police internal affairs: corruption can occur
anywhere in public life. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Branch has a very different role
from that of the Internal Investigation Branch. However, the ACB is the only body that
investigates corruption, including police corruption, in South Australia.
In her review of operations under the Police Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings
Act 1985, Iris Stevens received submissions from the public complaining about a `lack of
professionalism at times in the investigative procedure' of handling police complaints.
Indeed, there has long been public concern about police investigating police. Section 13
of the Police Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings Act 1985 requires the Internal
Investigation Branch to be a `separate branch' within the Police Force. Section 15 of the
Act prohibits the Internal Investigation Branch staff from investigating offences by
civilians, yet investigating offences by civilians is part of the duties of the
Anti-Corruption Branch. Therefore, the two cannot be legally combined unless the ACB is
stripped of its functions to investigate non-police corruption. Through the Treasurer, I
ask the Minister:
1. Does the Government support the amalgamation of the ACB and the IIB?
2. Is it the Government's intention to strip the ACB of its functions to investigate
non-police corruption to facilitate this proposed collocation?
3. Does the Government accept that combining the ACB and the IIB would reduce the
independence of the ACB?
4. Would it increase the ACB's direct accountability and potential influence from
police management located in the same building?
5. If this does go ahead, does the Government consider that it is appropriate to set
up a new, independent entity to investigate corruption in South Australia?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will refer the honourable member's
questions to the Minister and bring back a reply.
Read the Government's reply: 25 May 1999
Site assisted by Intramedia Design