Police Numbers

POLICE NUMBERS

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [6.09], by leave: I move:

That Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services to comply with the resolution of the House agreed to on 17 November 1994, regarding the tabling of papers on police numbers under Standing Order 54, by requiring only the provision of a certified list of numbers, not names, in respect of the information sought in paragraphs 1(b) to (k) and 3(l).

Members might recall that on 17 November I moved a lengthy motion relating to police numbers, the terms of which members are familiar with. The effect of the motion was that the Police Service had to provide information as to the authorised and actual strength of each patrol, including the numbers of officers who are assigned to beat police, on sick leave, on leave without pay, on part-time leave without pay, on extended leave, on maternity leave, undergoing rehabilitation, on inquiry restricted duties, on other restricted duties, suspended or seconded. Hansard correctly interpreted what I was after; the motion referred specifically to numbers.

That is all that is involved, but it would appear that the words "all documents" have led the Police Service to believe - and only the Police Service could possibly believe this - that the House wanted those documents to include the following when undergoing rehabilitation: sick leave applications, medical certificates, employee assistance branch records, rehabilitation files, police medical officer files, workers compensation files, PSSAC files, psychologists files, welfare files, from the patrol, district, region or branch correspondence. In relation to restricted duties the documents would include: sick leave applications, medical certificates, service registers, employee assistance branch records and the other documents I mentioned.

In respect of those on maternity leave the Police Service has asked all and sundry stations in the State to provide the information. I repeat, no-one in his right mind, after reading the motion, would understand that this is what the House would want. The Police Service has asked for service registers and personnel records. I am grateful that the Government has enabled me to seek to amend the resolution that the House passed the other day so that we have a certified list of numbers that will enable compliance with 1(b) to (k) and 3(l). I understand and admit that police officers working with the Independent Commission Against Corruption should not have their names made known to those who deserve to have criminal sanctions against them.

For that reason I have made appropriate provision. In my view the Police Service has attempted to frustrate what the House has asked for. In all other respects, paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of the resolution remain unaltered. The proposed change applies to sick leave, maternity leave and part-time
Page 5566
leave. Mr Speaker, you will recall that the resolution provided that the documents become public. It was never the intention of the Australian Labor Party, and I do not think it was the Government's intention, that any personal details or medical records of police officers should become the subject of public record or debate. For those reasons I move the amendment and hope the Government will support it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Ashfield to give the Chair a signed copy of the amendment.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [6.14]: The Government granted leave to allow the amendment to be moved. As I told the House last Thursday, this exercise is not only a waste of resources; it is a political stunt. I told the House that the information sought would have to be requested from 400-odd police stations throughout the State. I estimated that it would take three weeks rather than three days to gather the information. The reality of what the honourable member for Ashfield required in his motion has now become apparent to him. I said that the motion would result in a real diversion of police officers from their work in solving and preventing crime and helping the public. We are now finding that that is the case. The honourable member for Ashfield has been caught out. It is nonsense for members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Ashfield, to talk about computers providing the information. He has to learn plain English and understand what the standing orders of this House provide. Standing Order 54, under which he requested the information, provides:

Accounts and Papers may be ordered to be laid before the House; and the Clerk shall communicate to the Premier all orders for Papers made by the House; and such Papers shall be laid on the Table by any Member of the House, being also a Member of the Government.

The relevant word is "papers" - not computer print-outs but papers in existence. If the Government, in response to previous motions under Standing Order 54, had provided certified statements, Opposition members would have attacked us and said, "You have doctored the documents. You have not provided the full information". The Police Service and I are adhering to the letter of the motion moved by the honourable member for Ashfield, which was carried by a majority of the House. The motion was not moved by the Government; it was moved by the honourable member for Ashfield. The honourable member now says that all he wanted was a statistical summary. He could have used other available forms of the House; the use of Standing Order 54 was not appropriate in the circumstances.

In his private member's statement this afternoon the honourable member for Londonderry continued to attack the Government, alleging that we do not have enough police on the streets and that the Police Service is not up to its authorised strength. The honourable member for Liverpool knows a little more about the operation of the Police Service than the honourable member for Ashfield. He would understand that the numbers on a particular day do not give an accurate reflection because there are changes month by month and day by day. At 30 June the numbers will be different from those at 1 November. They are different as of 20 November because on Monday this week an extra 235, I think it was, probationary constables were sworn in.

Mr Whelan: Yes.

Mr WEST: What is the honourable member's problem with probationary constables? If the honourable member walked out of the Parliament and committed an offence that required action by a police officer, a probationary constable could apply the requirements of the law in exactly the same way as any other officer up to the rank of commissioner. The honourable member for Ashfield and those advising him have failed to grasp the circumstances. The honourable member has gone through the charade of requiring figures patrol by patrol. There is an instruction within the Police Service that provides that numbers can be allocated within districts to meet policing needs. The number of officers in a particular patrol on Monday might vary on Tuesday because the district commander, on advice within the district, decides to reallocate staff. The honourable member for Ashfield has realised that he got it badly wrong, that he has received the wrong advice. He is being carefully advised by the Police Association, whose fingerprints are all over this grubby exercise. He said that he was worried about having to provide all these forms.

How could I certify that on a particular day certain people were on maternity leave or rehabilitation, or seconded to another law enforcement office, without providing the documents required by the motion? The honourable member for Ashfield also caught himself by moving that the information be made public without restricted access. Personal privacy could have been protected if the information had been sought through the Clerk's office and on the basis of restricted access. But no, the honourable member wanted it without restricted access. Again the honourable member was caught out in making sure that officers had all of their affairs broadcast. It is appropriate to draw to the attention of the House a letter I received from Assistant Commissioner Nixon, the Executive Director of the human resources section of the Police Service. In her submission to me Assistant Commissioner Nixon said:

I am informed that your office has sought clarification on the service's concern over the release of confidential personal information from the employee assistance branch relating to the medical condition of officers experiencing periods of ill health.

At the outset, I would like to mention that the information retained by the employee assistance branch relates to personal and confidential information on the medical and psychological conditions of a significant number of members of this service.

In most circumstances, members of the service have sought voluntary assistance from the branch on the understanding that any personal information that they divulge will remain strictly confidential. They are given a

Page 5567
commitment to this effect by the professional staff of the branch, be they psychologists, social workers, drug and alcohol counsellors, medical practitioners or rehabilitation counsellors.

It is generally considered against professional ethics to release any information about individual cases from files which are created within the branch without the written consent of the member concerned. Specifically, the Psychologists Registration Act prevents our psychologists from releasing any information without consent. Medical ethics also place similar bars on the actions of police medical officers.

If the branch were required to comply with the request to produce all files relating to each officer, it would involve photocopying well in excess of 100,000 pages of confidential file material, disclosing extremely personal details of officers which would infringe upon their legitimate right to privacy.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, I hold great concerns over the ongoing ability of the branch to maintain a professional relationship, based on integrity, with its client base. However, I would, of course, comply with your direction, if required.

It is, of course, not my direction; it is a direction of this House upon a motion under Standing Order 54 moved by the honourable member for Ashfield. Assistant Commissioner Nixon quite rightly used the words "ethics", "confidentiality" and "legitimate right to privacy". This is where the honourable member for Ashfield has now realised the folly of his ways. As a result of a number of protests from members of the Police Service and the Police Association who have rightly drawn their concerns to his attention, he now seeks to make changes.

It is appropriate that the privacy of officers be protected but it also must be remembered that relevant information on any given day will give a base, but will not provide all of the information. Part of the motion referred to the monthly casualty list. I already have one page of that, and it divulges names. Does the honourable member want the names as well? When the honourable member asked for the monthly casualty list since May 1991 did he want me to detail month by month officers who took optional retirement in each region, officers who have been discharged medically unfit in each region, officers who have resigned from each region, and officers who were dismissed or had their services terminated? Does he want their names? He also talked about confidentiality and concern for the rights of individuals.

At this stage it is clear that the honourable member for Ashfield again has done only half the job. He ought to realise what he has done; he has used an archaic form of this House, a standing order introduced into Parliament in 1922, that was not designed for the purpose for which it is now being used and abused by the Australian Labor Party. In future the honourable member for Ashfield and all honourable members opposite should consider the severity and grave nature of the way in which they are using these forms, because they are denigrating the people who work in the Police Service. That includes thousands of sworn police officers and all of their support teams, who really would rather spend their time protecting the community than responding to these stupid political follies and stunts pursued in this State by the honourable member for Ashfield and his team of supporters.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is somewhat troubled by the motion. The House has resolved, pursuant to Standing Order 54, that certain papers be produced. The correct interpretation of that resolution is that papers in existence at the date of the resolution be produced. It in no way contemplates the production of papers brought into existence subsequent to the resolution. Therefore, I suggest to the honourable member for Ashfield, in the interests of procedural clarity, and I understand that the Government accepts the spirit of the motion, that his motion be reworded to state, "That this House rescinds its direction under Standing Order 54" - because Standing Order 54 requires the production of papers in existence prior to the dates indicated - "pursuant to resolution of 17 November", and then set out the details identified by the honourable member for Ashfield and the date by which the papers are to be produced. That will not change the intention of the member. There is clear conflict between the motion and the resolution of the House. A new motion cannot be added to the resolution as it stands. If the honourable member for Ashfield would like to discuss the matter with me, I would be happy to do so. I make the suggestion for the sake of procedural clarity, as a dangerous precedent would be set if the House were to accept the motion in its present form, which is without basis.

Mr Whelan: Mr Speaker, I am afraid I could not agree with that because the very essence of the Standing Order 54 notice was the subject of a wide-ranging debate. I do not intend to change that part of the resolution dealing with paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), and paragraph (3) in only a minor matter. I do not intend to depart from the obligation under Standing Order 54 for the Police Service to provide all necessary information that the House has sought. I am suggesting that a certified list in respect of paragraphs 1(b) to (k) be sufficient compliance.

Mr SPEAKER: I am suggesting that the member for Ashfield rescind that part of the resolution. I am not sure whether he understands that there is an absolute dichotomy between the request for production of papers and the resolution of the House.

Mr Whelan: If there is a procedural difficulty, perhaps the matter should be adjourned and worked through, but I will not withdraw the resolution. The Government has the numbers and if it wants to do something about it, it can. I have no difficulty obtaining information on police numbers; in fact I have a computer list of district strengths. I have every piece of information. Why can the Minister for Police not get it? Mr Speaker, in view of your advice, perhaps we should adjourn the matter and consider it again at a later hour.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 6.29 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Page 5568