Tony Lupton - Speech
Police Integrity Bill
9 April 2008
I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution in support of the Police Integrity Bill, which establishes a stand-alone act to set out and support the important functions of the Office of Police Integrity (OPI). This legislation is before the Parliament as a result of matters recommended in a report by the special investigations monitor (SIM), which is the oversighting body that was established by this government to ensure that the operations of the Office of Police Integrity and the director, police integrity, were carried out in an appropriate manner with appropriate oversight. As part of the special investigation monitor's functions it reports to Parliament in relation to the operation of the legislation and makes recommendations. The government has been pleased to receive that report and to act in relation to the recommendations contained in it.
The report of the SIM contains 23 recommendations, and we need to be clear that the government is in very large measure enacting those recommendations in this legislation, which includes the implementation of 18 of them. Two other recommendations are being implemented in part but do not require legislative amendment so are not included in this legislation. There are a couple of recommendations the SIM made which the government has considered closely. However, after receiving advice the government has decided to proceed on a slightly different course.
The role of the SIM is of course an important one. It was established by the Major Crime (Special Investigations Monitor) Act 2004. It monitors activities of Victoria Police, the director, police integrity, and the OPI itself. Currently the SIM can investigate complaints made by someone who has attended the OPI to provide information, give evidence or produce documents or things.
This jurisdiction is an important one and one which this government, having established it, obviously fully supports. The way in which the special investigations monitor has come to make recommendations involves changes to the way in which the Office of Police Integrity and the director, police integrity, are established and run. One of the important matters that needs to be seen in the overall context of this legislation is the separation between the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's role, and the director, police integrity, and the director's role.
As has been said on many occasions in this house, when the government was required to speedily and effectively establish the Office of Police Integrity to respond to matters of public safety concern some time ago, it decided, on the advice that we had, that the best way to establish those offices quickly and effectively was to have them operate jointly. It was of course the intention after a period of time to separate those offices and have them run by different people as separate bodies. So I am delighted that as a result of legislation that we passed through this Parliament late last year, which will come into effect in the near future, the office of the director, police integrity, will be filled by His Honour Judge Michael Strong, formerly a judge of the County Court. I personally have great respect for Judge Strong. He has served the people of Victoria with great distinction as a member of the County Court bench for a considerable period of time, and I must say that I had the opportunity to appear before him in the County Court on many occasions over the years when I was practising as a barrister, and I am very confident that he will do an outstanding job on behalf of the people of Victoria as the new director, police integrity.
The changes to the way in which the Office of Police Integrity will operate as a result of that earlier legislation, establishing the separate and distinct office, and the changes and improvements that are being made as a result of the legislation that is before the house will, I believe, well serve the people of Victoria in the way in which we can effectively deal with matters of police corruption.
Some of the specific issues that are dealt with in this legislation involve the provision to members of the OPI of defensive equipment, and in certain limited circumstances the capacity to carry firearms. It deals with matters of judicial review of the operations of the OPI, and it also deals with some legal matters which are often regarded as quite technical to do with immunity of OPI officers and protection of OPI documents from being released in civil and criminal proceedings.
They may well in fact be quite technical matters, but they are very important to the administration of justice in this state, and we need to be clear about that because the way in which the OPI operates and the regime that is established under this legislation I believe will be a very effective and appropriate one in allowing the OPI to properly do its oversight job, and also in making sure that the public can see that there is a right for people to have a fair trial and to ensure that the procedures and processes of the OPI operate in a way that is fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
There are some situations where defensive equipment and firearms are required to be available to a limited number of Office of Police Integrity operatives. There are some situations where officers of the OPI are placed in situations of some very considerable risk, and they need to have that provision.
Of course they are people who will be and are properly trained to the same standards as Victoria Police or Australian Federal Police officers, and there is a range of very strict provisions put in place about the way in which information about police operations and OPI operations is made available to the OPI so that they do not conflict with each other.
Judicial review of the OPI is something that has been of particular concern in the development of this legislation. I think it is important that we allow an appropriate review power of OPI actions but that the OPI is not subjected to the types of judicial review that would in any way impede or delay the OPI from carrying out its functions effectively. I think it is a very important balance to strike, and I believe this legislation effectively strikes that balance. In the same way I believe the provision of immunity for OPI officers from being sued in certain circumstances strikes an appropriate balance.
The bill does not expand existing immunities but carves out from the general immunity a provision to cover critical incidents. Where an act of an OPI officer involves a critical incident and the use of a firearm or defensive equipment or the use of other force, the circumstances in which a person may bring proceedings against the OPI will be extended. If an OPI officer is involved in a critical incident, that officer will be personally liable if they have not acted in good faith. If the officer has acted in good faith, then any liability that would otherwise attach to the person would attach to the state.
The bill also establishes an appropriate situation where OPI documents can be available in criminal proceedings, subject to some appropriate provisions being put in place for a judge to either hear ex parte evidence or hear matters contained in a confidential affidavit, and it allows the appointment of a special counsel to represent the interests of a defendant. The bill strikes the right balance; it allows the OPI to operate effectively.
The bill should be supported by the house.
Home Privacy, Copyright, Disclaimer Site Map