by CAA | Jan 29, 2021 | Library, Uncategorized
29th January 2021
No respect for Police or authority, we have caused that too.
Children are not born with inherent criminal dispositions; it is a learnt trait; as clearly as a child who does not display a criminal resolve that is equally the product of learnt traits.
The starting point for accumulating these life traits is shortly after birth, progressing through things as necessary as feeding, ablutions, social interaction and an infinite number of other life fragments to form the traits that evolve; good or bad.
There would be very few if any parents who deliberately set out to instil a criminal bent into their children, although there are no doubt many parents who lack good parenting skills, through no fault of their own, who may contribute.
The importance of good parenting transcends the significance of all other skills of a child’s mother or father and a task for which there is no training or accountabilities.
Children do not learn to walk by themselves; they are nurtured and encouraged, guided and motivated by their parents. That process is a continuum for many of their formative years, teaching a myriad of skills and building a persona.
At a very young age, children are taught boundaries and the consequences of breaching them. “Do not walk so close to the edge you will fall over and hurt yourself”.
The common denominator in all of this is the repetitive nature of learning and the necessity, no matter the challenge, for encouragement and goal setting, with achievement recognised; boundaries are also necessary for their safety and survival.
The consequences of breaching the boundaries are the most effective deterrent, to avoid the rules being broken and the child or young person being hurt.
Remove the deterrent, and adverse outcomes occur.
Why sectors of or community, unfortunately in positions of power, are so determined to remove all consequences and deterrents from young people is a social disgrace and the young people for whom this is paradoxically allegedly designed to help end up the victims in the end.
Consistency is the key. The consistency needs to run through society from early childhood development, education, sporting organisations and other social activities, to policing and the courts. Instead of operating in the isolation of their perceived values, consistency across the board needs to be implemented.
A policy framework to achieve this would not be all that difficult.
The latest crime figures highlight that it is not the children or their parents, causing this phenomenon of children entering crime at the high end, but we as a society. They do it because there are no consequences; in their mind.
At least one presumption is not based on any empirical data in the Herald Sun Article of the 28th of January, the headline.
‘Kids graduating straight to violent crimes’.
We would argue that all this implies is that young perpetrators may not have been caught for a minor crime, and petty crime may not be given the focus and priority it requires. Like many social issues, this criminal activity must be targeted at the formative stage, not after the trait has manifested.
An unknown author once said, “Criminals and drug addicts are made by the time they are six years old”, there is some truth in this.
Young perpetrators not being dealt with for minor crime or anti-social behaviours with consistency and consequences lead to the learnt skills that create a serious crime bent.
A lack of respect is also a learned trait. The vast majority of children grow up through their formative years with little discipline and any form of consequence for crossing the societal boundaries on behaviour.
We have reached a stage where consequences or punishment are near taboo.
A recent experience where a young mother was rationalising in great detail with a toddler over behaviour in a supermarket aisle made me shudder as what that child may mature to be. A three-year-old has not the cognitive skills to process the tirade, and it was an absurd pantomime.
The traditional deterrent used by parents, “Do that, and you will end up in jail”, has long been debunked and nullified by the allegedly enlightened progressives and reinforced by the judiciary causing a lack of support and enthusiasm for parents and Police to take action on minor matters.
In our modern, so-called,’ informed society’ where fanciful ideologues rule, we need to re-examine our societal structure in a pragmatic way to reset and address these problems. Otherwise, the trends will continue and increase in severity and frequency.
We would also argue that our society relies on Police as the arbiter on behavioural standards, compliance with the law. The lack of respect for the Law and Police is a matter of grave concern and is part of the root cause of the current problems.
‘No perpetrator ever commits a crime if they think they will get caught.’
That is irrespective of age or the bungling stupidity of the rationalisation that a perpetrator may display.
On the issue of respect, it has to be learnt or taught the same as any other trait; it cannot ever be assumed, as the current approaches seem to favour.
The ideologues currently pushing for young offenders to have their crimes expunged are just feeding this phenomenon where young people interpret this as a free pass. Although the arguments are perhaps laudable to some, the irony is that it actually hurts the children that it is allegedly trying to protect.
The ideologues are so startlingly naive that they do not realise that peer pressure on young people would include the rationale that nothing will happen to them if caught because of their age. So, the progressives’ efforts are thwarted by this naivety, and underage perpetrators are therefore an attractive proposition for older crooks.
The young people this is designed to help do not read the newspapers or listen to debates in parliament when these things are dealt with but are influenced by social media where the authors of negative incorrect messages created by some ill-informed noggin heads are considered gospel.
We do know that the likelihood of a positive response from a young person is generally towards somebody they know or can relate too. Therefore, it is imperative that young people in their formative years are exposed to Police with whom they establish a relationship and learn there is a person in that uniform they can connect with. Where the boundaries stand, are as equally important as the consequences of breaching them— this interaction is critical in supporting parents and educators rather than in a contest with them.
These relationships are vitally important and essential if we wish to reign in (and protect) these miscreant children and achieve a level of respect for our laws or society norms.
It is time that policies are developed that are practical and effective, and the effort placed where it will have the greatest effect rather than, ‘tilting at windmills’ or ‘chasing rainbows’.
We can do without the Don Quixote approach currently in vogue.
by CAA | Jan 29, 2021 | Library, Uncategorized
by CAA | Jan 17, 2021 | Library, Uncategorized
17th January 2021
This is a rather dry subject that usually excites Legal Academics and practitioners. However, this doctrine is one of the major cornerstones to effective and efficient democracy, encompassing and facilitating all the good things we cherish, so we all should take notice.
The doctrine of the Separation of Powers
Divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial: the legislature makes the laws; the executive puts the laws into operation; the judiciary interprets the laws.
Democracy tends to deteriorate, and governments tend to move to an undesirable bent when parts of this separation break down.
We have witnessed the breakdown of this separation over recent years in Victoria, particularly with the Police’s executive role.
The role of Police exercising their function in the separation process is that they must exercise that role without fear or favour, malice or ill will, because it is that approach that is the only mechanism that will act as a deterrent to those who would otherwise unlawfully exploit their positions in any of the three sectors of power.
In recent years, we have witnessed blatant examples of laws being broken by people in the various sectors but prosecutions and, on occasions, investigations not undertaken or not completed by Police.
The problem with this, is that the deterrent effect of having a Police Force is wholly undermined when individuals or a class of people are in effect exempt, or more dangerously believe they are exempt, or believe they are offered protection from the law, that the rest of the community must obey.
The best test of this presumption is whether the average citizen did what a member of the three arms of power did, would they be dealt with differently? If the answer is yes, the separation is failing all of us.
Some of the glaring examples have been evident in recent inquiries commissioned by the government where witnesses from different sectors of the powers allegedly lied or were not exposed to vigorous examination to determine the truth. The defence presented with embarrassing regularity of “I can’t remember”, by many was not vigorously and publicly tested which raises the question of, why not?
It is just incomprehensible that so many of these people holding down very well remunerated executive positions, that we the public pay for, could all have such bad memories.
Which, ‘begs the question‘, why if their memories are so poor are they in these positions as their function and abilities must be adversely impacted by such an affliction?
There is, however,‘ light at the end of the tunnel.’
The CAA is confident that the new Chief Commissioner has the right ethical values to ensure that the Separation of Powers will be honoured by Victoria Police. These values of the Chief Commissioner and every other member of the Victoria Police Force are values they are bound to by their oath they have sworn to uphold.
The Police Oath sworn by every Police member is:
OATH OR AFFIRMATION FOR POLICE OFFICERS
I [ insert name ] [ swear by Almighty God/do solemnly and sincerely affirm ] that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a police officer in Victoria in any capacity in which I may be appointed, promoted, or reduced to, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will for the period of [ insert period ] from this date, and until I am legally discharged, that I will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved, and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences, and that while I continue to be a police officer I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties legally imposed on me faithfully and according to law.
It is very instructive to note that the allegiance sworn by Police members, is not to the government of the day, and not to the other arms of the three powers but the Queen. Demonstrating that our forebears in their wisdom saw the need for a separate independent Police Force, and that is what we must have.
The policing philosophy that Patton has embraced relates equally in the function of applying the separation of powers as it does to everyday policing of the rest of us.
There is an old saying that, “You never see a bank robbed if there is a Policeman at the door”, perhaps not politically correct in this new enlightened era. Still, the principle here is that Crime Prevention hinges on the chance of a perpetrator to be caught and equally that no crook ever commits a crime, ‘no matter how dumb’ that believes they will get caught.
This basic of all crime prevention strategies ‘the visible Police presence’, applies equally, even though metaphorically, to all those involved in the three arms of government.
An independent Police Force will influence substantially, accountability to the law in every niche of the government ensuring that anybody that breaks the law is not above the law and can be held to account for their actions.
We are confident that the Chief Commissioner has an excellent understanding of these principles.
by CAA | Jan 14, 2021 | Library, Uncategorized
15th January 2021
A component of a reform agenda introduced by a previous State Government, Restorative Justice, has just surfaced. A three (3) year Pilot program called the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) that has by stealth continued on and is now due to be adopted by the County Court, and it would seem without legislative support.
The CISP seems nothing more than a referral program that has been overlaid in the Courts bureaucracy at the cost of somewhere north of $40m over its duration and performs a function that the Courts were already responsible for. Another layer of bureaucracy providing jobs for academics featuring a multi-disciplined approach, a euphemism for big pay packets. Any wonder the judiciary support the program when this workload is removed from them, not to mention the budgetary advantages of not having to fund this process through Court budgets. Get rid of responsibility and keep the savings.
This quango is in its fifteenth (15th) year after a trial that was only being conducted at a small number of Magistrates Courts for three (3) years has crept across the State like a plague and now is trending upwards in the Judicial system.
This Pilot is not a pilot; it is a bureaucratic process that has been introduced under the guise of a pilot to avoid scrutiny. The Pilot has been running far longer than the original three-year schedule and has expanded to include all major Magistrates Courts and now heads for the County Court. We can’t find any underpinning legislation, certainly not for the County Court foray.
This is a classic bureaucratic overreach, dictating social changes to the electorate’s exclusion, but then what would we know, we are only their employers.
Being treated in this manner is offensive to all Victorians. If the program is so good why the stealth?
And what makes this initiative so offensive is there is no empirical data that shows it works, at its most generous only 50% of participants complete it. The trial found that only a 10% better outcome for the participants compared to a control group.
By any stretch, that cannot be considered a success when the program itself gets to cherry-pick participants.
The review of the first three years of the Pilot is uninspiring and features a list of parameters that could not be measure because the records of that data are not kept. Based on this review, the only one located, any pragmatic evaluation of CISP would not see it binned at that stage. https://silo.tips/download/evaluation-of-the-court-integrated-services-program-final-report
The headline figure relied upon by its proponents is that 50% of offenders entering the program do not re-offend, but 50% do. Relying on that abysmal figure to justify the program is bad enough, but that figure is a classic’ smoke and mirrors’ assessment because that is not the truth of the matter.
In the fine print, this program’s constructors have put an arbitrary time frame (for which it appears there is no scientific basis) on re-offending. This random figure means re-offending outside that arbitrary period is not counted as re-offending. Be interesting to know what this offending is?
There appears to be no mechanism to deal with those perpetrators who may not satisfy or complete the program, particularly those who were never convicted or pleaded guilty to the crime alleged. Whether theoretical or not, that means that the 50% figure may well include many who did not complete their part in the initiative. Because of the program’s structure, and the participant could reappear for the program as a first-timer, not as the recidivist they are.
Of course, you could rely on a perpetrator, to be honest, an oxymoron, and admit that they had used the program before, and it helped in their sentencing outcomes.
However, a victim of this re-offending may have a different view of this program to the constructors.
While on the subject of Victims, it may have escaped these constructors that there is a victim for every one of those crimes that end up one of their statistics. Victims who read the material on this initiative can be excused for thinking the equality between victim and perpetrator that Restorative Justice proposes have been lost.
Restorative Justice is popular amongst academics, but even this concept has been hijacked to exclude Victims, a cohort that does not rate a mention in any form in the CISP.
Under this system, all sorts of favourable outcomes for criminals can be achieved.
To access this support, they just need to commit a crime. Housing, mental health support, employment support, and much more are not provided to the crime victim.
As ridiculous as it may seem, this scheme could incentivise crime. All these things on offer, and it just needs the individual to commit a crime, a significant deterrent effect; we don’t think so.
What is also unclear, is what is the status the alleged perpetrators? The best we can deduce is that they are often suspected perpetrators as they can enter the program without having to plead their guilt or innocence or have the evidence against them tested.
This gives rise to two undesirable consequences. Firstly the possibility that the innocent or wrongly accused could be subject to the process, and secondly without status how can the perpetrator be recorded (the small matter of their privacy) to ensure they are not gaming the system for their upcoming court appearance.
This program has advanced as far as it has because of stealth. The title, ‘A Pilot has excluded the mechanisms to protect the community from undesirable social engineering (the Parliament)’. Whoever heard of a three (3) year Pilot operating for fifteen years?
This bureaucratic approach undermines at least two arms of democracy, the Parliament and the Judiciary. Under this approach, we could dispense with both and hand all power to the State, is called totalitarianism.
There would seem to be no record of even a ‘sham’ community consultation process; the constructors are so sensitive to rejection.
The question that must be answered is where did these bureaucrats obtain the mandate for the Pilot, let alone its 15 years of operation and budgets of $3 million per annum, extrapolating out to somewhere at north of $40m and extensions from the Pilot sites to every major Magistrates court in Victoria and now the County Court?
That the Parliament has not functioned for over twelve months does not give bureaucrats licence to proceed with social engineering without reference to the House. They have had 15 years to have a bill for its function presented to the House to give the program legitimacy. There has been no bill concerning the operation of this program in the County Court.
This bureaucratic process would seem to have cut the Attorney General out of the loop, and she needs to put the brakes on this program and expose it to proper scrutiny.
We have been edging towards totalitarianism on a number of fronts. Still, with the bureaucrats taking advantage of the lack of an effective parliament, that has now developed into a sprint. The sprint no doubt motivated by the impending return of Parliament, not when the risk of COVID dissipates (as it now has), but when the State of Emergency expires in April.
One of the architects of restorative jurisprudence advocates reimagining our justice system, which would be good if that meant imagining a society with little or no crime and few victims, but it does not. It is reimagining that a criminal is not a criminal and is not responsible for their actions; we are, and that is a bridge too far.
The purpose of, The Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) is to reduce recidivism and presumably crime; therefore, only one logical and practical yardstick can be is applied to evaluate it, the crime rate.
For the fifteen years of this project, the Crime rate in 2005/6 was 373,024 reported crimes or 7383 per 100k population, by 2020 that has grown to an overall crime rate increasing by approximately 40% to 514398 reported crimes and 8227 per 100k population, an additional 141,137 crimes committed per annum in this State.
No matter which way you cut and slice these figures, this program is a fiasco for Victorians. It may give restorative justice proponents a warm glow – that $40m glow could be better spent on crime prevention, then there would not be as many perpetrators or victims for that matter. Should that not be the purpose?
The return on this expenditure has had no impact on crime and has not reduced the impact on Victims. So why are we still doing it? Other than it being a bureaucratic jaunt, $40m+ for a 10% reduction in recidivism for a cherry-picked cohort of criminals is a ridiculous waste of money.
Based on the figures during the pilot phase, it costs $12K to achieve one successful outcome for one perpetrator for a limited period with no guarantee they will not re-offend.
From its inception through its ‘Pilot’, this whole process is a direct challenge to our democracy. It is a clear path to totalitarianism where the State operates without reference to the people they govern.
So CISP is a failure.
by CAA | Dec 19, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
19th December 2020
As a general rule, the views of journalist Steve Price seem to be a voice of reason, but this time he has got it wrong, and we cannot let it pass without comment.
Price seems to have led the pile-on of other journalists and commentators on Chief Commissioner Shane Patton’s decision over the Black Lives Matter rally, but he has based his argument on specious foundations.
He has omitted some facts, manipulated others and failed to recognise a positive that is so rare that it should have been the headline for his article instead of, ‘A matter of unease’, in the Herald Sun 19/12/20.
There would be no clear thinking objective Victorian who witnessed the Premier delivering his comment about the proposed BLM rally who did not accept it was tantamount to approval, a wink and a nod. The words alone may have been problematic, but the style of delivery and the body language amounted to a clear acquiesce to the demonstration.
The Premiers performance was omitted by Price. However, it would have played into the decision making by Patton as a pivotal issue, and rightly so.
Police would have been confronted with demonstrators who would have very conveniently extrapolated out the Premier’s ill-judged comments as support for their actions. So the police would be dealing with, noggin heads, believing they had the right and the might from a higher authority than the police, a guaranteed recipe for conflict.
A mindset that could well lead to the serious violence that Patton feared, leading him to exercise the discretion police have.
We have confidence in the ability of Patton, but we do not rate him as a deity.
It would seem however that Price thinks he should be, and can predict that disastrous break out of COVID from the quarantine hotels that happened nearly two weeks after the BLM demonstration that caused the mother of all lockdowns as a consequence that is and was irrelevant to the Patton decision and remains so.
There is no doubt a different decision would be made by Patton, had he had the foresight of a divine being, capable of predicting the impending disaster. Price is totally disingenuous in basing his argument on that spurious assumption.
The article is also peppered with references to, ‘otherwise law-abiding citizens’ as though breaking the Law imposed for COVID was acceptable, and enforcing that Law was somehow wrong. A bit like the mentality towards .05% and Speed cameras when they were first introduced, both attracting the ire of ‘otherwise law-abiding citizens’.
Deriding the policing function is both ill-informed and offensive to all police who are recognised as essential and expected to put their own safety ahead of the community, something they regularly willingly do.
It isn’t easy to comprehend how allegedly otherwise intelligent people, miss a critical point in this debate. Police do not make any laws, and least of all, the ones surrounding the State of Emergency declared to combat the COVID Pandemic.
If you disagree with some aspects of the COVID rules, then speak to your politicians, they make the rules do not criticise the police for the Law.
Furthermore, you have no divine right to beak a law because you are an ‘otherwise law-abiding citizen’ this concept is arrant nonsense. The only relevance to ‘otherwise law-abiding citizen’ is when the Judge is considering a penalty to impose for a breach of the Law. Then the ‘otherwise Law-abiding citizen’ concept may carry some weight, but that only relates to the punishment, not the guilt.
It does not matter who you think you are; if you break the Law, there are consequences, a concept Price may struggle with.
The accurate history of the Pandemic will record that Patton’s decision, turned out to be the right one, so why the confected pile-on?
It may have something to do with Patton behaving contrary to the norm for senior officials of this State; he has broken the mould. Patton has taken the bold step, to be honest, and accept responsibility and accountability for his decision. He forgot to use the normal, circumvention (spin) or the now infamous, ‘I can’t recall’, the approach we have come to expect.
This refreshing frankness and acceptance of accountability is something that commentators will need to adjust to as Patton is his own man and accepts responsibility.
We can only hope that this character strength is contagious, but I doubt it.
by CAA | Dec 15, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
16th December 2020
The original version of the publication contained a reference to Mr Findlay McRae managing Ms Gobbo as a human source. This is incorrect and has been removed. Mr McRae was not involved in the management of Ms Gobbo as a human source.
Interesting that, ‘the powers that be’, have decided to refer the head of the 600 strong Victoria Police Legal Services, Findlay McRae, to the legal regulator who polices the Practising Certificates of lawyers, over his role in the Lawyer-X debacle. Very embarrassing that this head of a Legal Department with rooms full of lawyers can get something so legally wrong.
However, this referral to the Legal Services Commission all seems a bit strange and disjointed, a bit, ‘cart before the horse’ esque. It has all the hallmarks of another catastrophic debacle in the making; as if we need another.
As we pointed out in our recent article, ‘LAWYER X – it’s not just the cops’, the potential exists for a number of police as well as legal practitioners to face serious criminal charges over Lawyer-X, and the Government has announced that they will appoint a Special Investigator to deal with these matters and make recommendations for any prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In our view that is the appropriate course of action.
There has always been a hierarchy of legal processes, with any criminal law matters preceding civil matters. It looks remarkably like the Government has chosen to ignore this principle raising some interesting issues.
With McRae fronting the Legal Services Commission before any criminal investigations start, is a bit like the police being dealt with by the police internal discipline system before their role in whatever malfeasance they are alleged to be involved in, is investigated. That would be inappropriate and like the Legal Service Commission probe, could jeopardise any criminal prosecution.
This also leaves Chief Commissioner Patton with a quandary. Patton can hardly leave McRae in charge of the Police Legal Service where his professional standards compliance is critical, while they are under review.
.Complicating matters is that we know that Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius also played a senior role in the management of Lawyer-X.
If the circumstances relate to one, they should equally apply to the other, and any number of other lawyers within Victoria Police and lawyers engaged for various aspects in the Gobbo legal stoush; spanning many years.
It is beyond reasonable belief that all the internal and external lawyers used to defend the exposure of Gobbo were unaware of her role. If they claim they did not know, then what were they defending her identity for or from? Why any of them didn’t have their professional ethics piqued, is amazing and an indictment on their profession.
The Legal Services Commission, if they do their job, are going to be very busy. However, as the fallout of this Royal Commission will improve policing it may also improve the ethics of the legal profession in this State. Both very desirable outcomes and will be applauded by the majority of lawyers and police who are ethical.
In our view, both lawyers McRae and Cornelius should be stood down from Victoria Police, and for that matter any other lawyers in the employ of Victoria Police that took part in any matters relating to Gobbo until an investigation can make recommendations on their ability to continue to hold a Practising Certificate. Likewise, law firms engaged by VicPol on this issue should be sidelined until the ethics of their lawyers can be reviewed.
Sworn police members who are subjected to investigation that could impinge on their duty as sworn police are suspended regularly until the matters are resolved. That same principle must apply to lawyers until their Certificates to Practise are reviewed and a conclusion reached. This is separate and distinct from any criminal matters that may be alleged against them.
The public will not accept being policed by police who have serious crimes alleged against them, and that is not unreasonable. However, in our view, those same principles should apply to legal practitioners. The public is entitled to know that lawyers with serious criminal and or professional matters alleged against them are not performing any legal functions.
In the case of lawyers, this is more important for internal police lawyers because in their legal function, preforming their normal roles, they could easily become involved in matters that become serious conflicts of interest.
The most significant risk, of course, is that the Special Investigator, yet to be appointed, starts with at least some targets already under investigation in another jurisdiction operating at different legal standards which could well end up compromising the criminal investigations that are to come.
The other risk already manifesting is that the Government will approach the findings of Justice McMurdo in a piecemeal, uncoordinated manner, so we may never know when this issue is completed. This approach exposes the risk of conflicts in the processes ending up with a nil-all result.
Prior to the appointment of the Special Investigator, there needs to be an independent Commissioner appointed to coordinate the response to the Royal Commission findings or like many Royal Commissions and inquires past there is a likelihood of,‘ Cherry picking’ findings, and in the end those responsible not implementing or diluting the recommendations made. The Black Saturday Royal Commission springs to mind.
As the fictional character Sir Humphrey Applebee of ‘Yes Minister’ fame would say, ‘the governments come and go but the public service is here to stay, so we only have to wait for an election and no matter who wins we have a clean slate and we continue on as we always do’.
That is not what Victorians need or deserve; we want ethical delivery of legal services in this State.
The CAA calls on the Andrews Government to appoint a review Commissioner who can ensure that the recommendations of McMurdo are implemented in a timely and professional way. This same Commissioner could look into the Quarantine Inquiry and provide the same service.
by CAA | Dec 6, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
6th of December 2020
From the outset, it must be made clear that the CAA does not support the use of lawyer Gobbo by the Victoria Police in the way it was done; it was unlawful, and Gobbo and the executive Police responsible must be held to account before the Law.
Generally, we support the findings of the Royal Commission however we do diverge on a couple of issues.
Although the actions of many involved below the executive of the Victoria Police in our view were perhaps unlawful, the Commissioner has failed to give due weight to the structural pressures and influence on many of the subordinate offices involved in this controversy.
Throughout this saga, Police directly involved were managed by the highest levels of Victoria Police, the Chief Commissioner Overland who has a Bachelor of Laws, and his executive command with Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius, a Lawyer.
Whether they were certified to practise is a moot point, what is beyond debate is that they both should reasonably expect to have a high understanding of the law and the unlawfulness of the program they sponsored. The knowledge they possessed strengthens their authority not diminish it.
Added to that authority, was the then head of the Office of Police Integrity (OPI), the forerunner of the IBAC. This independent oversight authority was part of the command team running the Gobbo affair.
Reinforcing the belief that the actions of the subordinates were legal, the OPI senior representative was none other than Graham Ashton, the penultimate authority on Police behaviours legal and otherwise, the Police watchdog. From the communities and rank and file of police perspective, he was believed to be totally independent, but he was not.
Ashton subsequently became Chief Commissioner and by his appointment was responsible for the multi-million dollar expenses to defend his and others, un-tenable position in this affair. A whole other matter of conflict of interest, not only in his role as deputy head of OPI but authorising expenditure that was designed to have outcomes from which he could benefit, has not been properly canvased.
Police members would also be well aware that Victoria Police has a substantial internal Legal Department, so it was not unreasonable to assume that their actions were lawful and had legal oversight. That the command chose to ignore or not seek a legal input is hardly an issue that would exercise the mind of subordinates, their bosses in their view would have that covered.
In the normal scheme of things, the subordinates would not have access to the force legal services and would never question the legality of what they were directed to do.
When you are managed by such a formidable and unassailable authority that this management team possessed, it is very understandable that many of the processes were not questioned.
The CAA is of the opinion that this infers that no legal advice, independent or otherwise, was sought and that is incredulous, and does not pass the ‘pub test’, by any stretch.
To accept the proposition that no legal advice was sought, then we must accept that two police who have legal training in the police leadership team, failed to discharge their duty. If they were Officers of the Court, they should be struck off, if not they have embarked on ‘perverting the course of justice’ an egregious offence striking at the heart of the legal system.
That the in-house police legal team knew nothing and when they did, did not attempt to fulfil their duty as Officers of the Court was also reprehensible conduct.
This groups activity are only marginally less egregious than the police executive who are legally trained. The in house lawyers were, ‘inside the tent’ and it is beyond reasonable belief that they were unaware of such a significant project involving Gobbo or 3838, as it was widely rumoured, within VicPol in that era, there was a ‘Supergrass’.
As was tendered in evidence at the Royal Commission, it was assumed by some the ‘Supergrass’, was Lawyer Garde-Wilson. So from early on, the rumour mill identified a lawyer was involved. In a damming indictment of their so-called professionalism, the legal practitioners failed to identify an inappropriate relationship irrespective of who the lawyer ‘Supergrass’ was.
Then Chief Commissioner Nixon who also apparently failed to get legal advice. If she had done her job, this matter would not have escalated to where it did. Nixon would have us believe she had the wrong lawyer. But as Nixon was Chief Commissioner it beggar’s belief that she did not know, even more so when there was evidence Nixon attended task force meetings. And again we have the situation with Nixon that she knew a lawyer (all be it the wrong one) was a ‘Supergrass’ and she failed to address the issue when she should have known that using any lawyer as a ‘Supergrass’, was fraught with all sorts of dangers, but she took no action to satisfy herself of the legality of the situation.
If we are supposed to believe that Chief Commissioner Nixon was not privy to the identity of the Supergrass when attending the task force meetings, then we would believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. This proposition is as preposterous, and it is silly.
The role of in house VicPol legal services lawyers in this artifice are at its best wilful omissions that must have involved overt acts to hide their knowledge. At worst their actions were as criminal as some of the police.
Then there is the huge gaggle of lawyers involved in defending the actions of Victoria Police who we are to believe did not know anything, is beyond the pale. They too failed in their duty as Law Officers and their duty to the Court.
In no way to be construed as defending the perpetrators of this artifice, the command of Victoria Police; members of the legal fraternity must share responsibility.
As with the police, it is imperative that the community once again should have confidence in the legal system and of an equal imperative is also to have confidence in the legal practitioners as a whole because the damage done to the whole profession by a few, the same as with the Police.
The legal fraternity must address the trust deficit and to rebuild that trust, action must be taken to ensure that the lawyer’s obligations as Officers of the Court can and will not be abused in the future.
Though it was outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, and a sceptic may suggest deliberately so, lawyers who knew or should have known what was going and on must be held to account, as are the police or the long shadow of this saga will not fade.
It is also not good enough that there is a suggestion that Gobbo will never be held to account for her crimes as extradition restrictions make it improbable. If she is not prepared to appear to defend her actions when held to account, then that is a decision she makes and in her case an informed one. Even if it requires new legislation, absconders must face their obligations even if it is ex-parte and they are sentenced in absentia. Convicted absconders can choose their own jail and live with an INTERPOL Red Notice; in perpetuity if they choose.
As for the members of the bar who so dramatically failed in their obligations, they must be, struck off.
Charging some serving and former police executives with criminal offences is essential to help rebuild trust; however, not something we would normally concede, we feel that in this circumstance the concept of ‘Nuremberg defence’, should apply to many of the police subordinate operatives.
If the Lawyer X job is done correctly, then the likelihood of a repeat is diminished to minuscule, but to deal with the police and not the lawyers is only halfway there.
The real test of the resolve to deal with this matter in its entirety is reform.
There have been many innovative reforms proffered for Victoria Police, and the Chief Commissioner has adopted them, and that is valuable for Victoria Police.
The glaring anomaly is the lack of reform being imposed or initiated by the legal fraternity. Partly driven by the lawyers collective hubris and further by their denial, their go-to position.
The legal fraternity suffers wide self-inflicted community derision for failing to undertake desperately needed reform so that lawyers have a proper mechanism to deal with lawyer whistle-blowers and establishing an independent legal authority to adjudicate on matters that push lawyers towards a conflict of interest or breaches of their oath or obligations as Officers of the Court.
The challenge is for lawyers as much as it is for police, the police are doing something, will the lawyers?
Perhaps we will have to rely on the journalists again to expose the truth.
by CAA | Nov 28, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
29th November 2020
It happens very rarely, but just once in a lifetime is perhaps good enough, if an opportunity presents that could have a dramatic effect on a scourge within our population, and a disaster creates that opportunity.
The disaster is COVID, and the scourge is illicit drugs.
The approach to this scourge has been piecemeal, and without putting, to finer point on it, the indisputable fact is, to date, all our efforts can only be described as a ‘Failure’. Too many so-called approaches, or misnamed solutions, tend to be from a misguided cohort of society with laudable objectives but aligned to some ideological bent or other, lacking pragmatism, so failure is inevitable.
Unfortunately, and maybe it is impossible to determine what is a success and what is a failure, because the promoters of strategies have such fervour towards their solution that any challenge is seen by them a heresy to their cause, rejected without consideration or the slightest whiff of pragmatism.
There have been a few notable omissions from any and every strategy thus far. Most significant is the omission of any effort to apply marketing principals to the illicit drug issue, that principle is without question successful in every other sphere you care to name.
We are referring to the basic marketing principals of supply and demand.
Law enforcement tries to address the supply side with little success, if it is measured by the prevalence of drugs in our society.
Lawmakers assume that substantial penalties act as a deterrent. However, the challenge is to find anybody in the illicit drug trade that even knows the offences they are committing (other than they know it is unlawful). It can be guaranteed that they have no idea of the penalties they risk, or much less care.
No crook ever commits a crime, no matter how dumb, without the belief they will get away with it, not get caught, so penalties are meaningless. Increasing penalties are akin to, ‘something has to be done, and this is the something.’
A more likely successful strategy will be to attack the demand side of the equation, reduce demand and disrupt the Marketing model applied to this illicit commercial endeavour.
Critically, part of that strategy is to attack the social acceptance of illicit drugs – a similar strategy to the one that successfully addressed the social impacts and social acceptance of tobacco.
To better understand what a solution might look like and how the equation of COVID and Drugs might work, there needs to an understanding of some facts.
- Drug addict/users cannot be forced to seek rehabilitation. It will not succeed unless the addicted user has come to a point where they REALLY want to kick the habit. Not just agree to rehab to satisfy some Judicial Officer. Addicts and users are consummate and well-rehearsed liars; their whole premise of life is based on a lie.
- Drug addiction is more than, a habitual reliance on an illicit substance, it is also a way of life, an escape, where the only worry is the insatiable urge to secure the next fix and avoid the police.
- The illicit Drug lifestyle attracts particularly the lazy where the lure of living the high life without working or need for personal care is a strong temptation that unfortunately is very rarely ever realised by the majority of addicts.
- Removing key players in the drug scene has minimal to no effect with a plethora of eager replacements waiting to fill any vacancy.
- The damage to families rarely feature in considerations made about addicts whereas the real victims are their families who generally suffer in silence because of perceived society shame that their child is an addict, and they somehow are responsible
- The horrendous cost to the whole community is rarely a consideration.
- The plethora of crime spawned by the drug trade (addicts or users securing the funds to maintain their habit) impact on victims is never seemingly considered.
How does COVID fit in? Coming to that.
The key, therefore, is to damage the demand side, reducing demand will damage the supply side driving down prices and profits. Decreasing demand for supply to a shrinking market will have other desirable outcomes by slowing the rivers of gold that funds the exotic myth of the trade.
Critically, such a strategy must be coordinated with a strategy to adjust community attitude and to use media to change public attitude by debunking rationales and justifications. ‘It’s only party drug’, ‘a bit of hooch never hurt anybody’, ‘It’s cheaper than grog’, ‘I only use it to unwind on the weekend. And there is a myriad of others.
The key is to make dugs socially unacceptable within the cohort of those that are likely to experiment or use; being proactive.
The allure to the drug trade can in part be blamed on Law Enforcement. They regularly brag about and value large busts that would, to many in the community, be akin to attracting bees to a honey pot, an irresistible magnet. We must stop glorifying and bragging of law enforcement success as it is counterproductive. The bragging should be focussed on convictions and penalties linking the consequences to the activity.
A sustained and targeted campaign to minimise and negate the influence of the positives of drug-taking, highlighting the risks of being a user and or an addiction. ‘1 pill = a lifetime of misery’, ‘It will happen to you’, are just a couple of examples.
Having achieved community attitudinal changes, a methodology must be developed to manage those that have unfortunately become tempted as a user and or are addicted. We need, as the community, to take some responsibility for these people who are always at risk of their addiction or use becoming a death sentence.
The evolution of Injection Rooms, unfortunately, labelled ‘Safe’, reinforces that drug-taking is safe, particularly under supervision. This approach is no doubt strongly supported by the drug tsars giving drugs an image to which they are not entitled.
The current marketing approach by the issue is injecting rooms is counterproductive to what should be the marketing strategy, and the government approval of these facilities is seen as a positive, in marketing terms, for the trade. If you don’t think that the drug dealers are not exploiting this marketing tool, you would be naive in the extreme, ‘Have a go at this, it’s ok because you can take it to the room”. You can’t lose when the government endorses your product.
We need to ensure the safety of the users and addicts, and that can be best done under medical supervision, but approached in a holistic way, not merely the management of their drug ingestion.
That is where COVID comes in.
To battle, the potential for a massive demand for hospital beds, particularly ICU there are a number of facilities modified or repurposed, at substantial cost, including the former Peter McCallum site in East Melbourne to deal with the demand, should the pandemic escalate dramatically, a sound government strategy.
However, as we come out of the pandemic and in the not too distant future, well before the next flu season, Vaccines will be widely distributed so these facilities will then be mostly redundant.
Applying a little pragmatism, these facilities could be repurposed to help beat the drug scourge.
What we propose is that the approach to the addicts and users come from the health perspective, and these facilities used to place a hiatus into their addiction or use, under medical supervision where their total health can be adequately evaluated and managed to try to encourage the addicts and users to seek to break their habit.
The facilities should not all be drug rehabilitation facilities. However, some maybe, but the priority is to provide beds for addicts and users so that pre-emptive action can be taken to motivate a willingness to deal with their habit, and improve their overall health.
Using powers created under the Health Act, Police who come across drug-affected people could lodge a person at one of these facilities rather than criminal processing even when small amounts of illicit drugs are present. Considering the safety of the user and the first responders generally, the patient would be transported by ambulance.
This will not affect any criminal proceedings as patients can be remanded initially to these facilities which by their nature are secure, before being transferred to corrections.
The user of illicit drugs can receive immediate medical assessment voiding the costly alternative of police and medical resources at Hospital Emergency Departments being used. The proposed modified Drug facilities will be safer for the user and remove the ever-present danger of psychotic drug users and the danger they pose to staff and other patients at hospitals.
Once a person suspected of being under the influence of drugs arrives at the facility, a more detailed medical examination determines whether the person is under the influence, and, if not, immediately discharged.
Once it is determined that they are under the influence, then they are admitted to the facility for fourteen days to have their health properly evaluated and to decide whether or not they are addicted. Once a Doctor is satisfied that the user is not addicted, they can be discharged provided; their health has been appropriately screened and evaluated.
As most if not all, users are in denial of addiction, denials of addiction by the patient are insufficient medical evidence that they do not have an addiction.
This fourteen-day hiatus in their drug use will have a number of desirable outcomes including, ensuring if they have any underlying health issues that can be addressed, the nexus in their drug associations/networks are broken at least temporarily. The medical practitioners have the opportunity to provide support for the addict.
The privacy of the addict should also be protected and cutting them from friends and contacts will generate inquiries however the answer to inquirers should always be the same, ‘They are safe, and they have been advised of your concern and will contact you directly’, it is up to the addict to explain their absence, not the authorities.
How might a facility like this operate? Security is essential to ensure the patients do not abscond and that illicit drugs or other unacceptable contraband do not enter the facility. As a cornerstone of this strategy, there can be no communication between the patient and the outside world for the period of treatment. We would consider that the Office of Corrections has the necessary skill sets to maintain security at a facility.
Under this scheme, many who are not recognised as ‘addicts’ can be identified and we can then perhaps get a handle on the size of the problem because generally, it has been anecdotal evidence only.
Once we know the actual size of the problem, we can develop strategies to better deal with it, remembering that only addicts that want to be rehabilitated will succeed so clogging the system with criminal addicts who use their addiction and promises of rehabilitation as mitigation in the court system will be found out.
Notably, two other important outcomes will be achieved by this initiative.
Drivers who test positive to drugs must be included, and that will have a dramatic deterrent effect on the misinformation circulating particularly with young drivers that police don’t test for drugs most times; therefore, it’s better to use drugs than alcohol. And the second equally important deterrent is that young people caught up in this scheme (albeit provision for young people will have to be built in) may receive the wakeup call (explaining their behaviour to parents etc.) that steers them away from serious and prolonged drug use.
This initiative would have a very positive effect on the drug problem at a relatively low cost given infrastructure will only need relatively minor adjustments and the cost-saving overall to the community would be enormous.
The starting point for this program has to be a cost-benefit analysis as a starting point with input from economists essential.
It is a once in a lifetime opportunity that will never present again, not to grab this opportunity would be an absolute tragedy.
Ivan W Ray
Chief Executive Officer Community Advocacy Alliance Inc
by CAA | Nov 23, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
24th November 2020
The Inquest into the terrible tragedy that unfolded in Bourke Street Melbourne on 20th January 2017 has now concluded, and we acknowledge the difficulty that the Coroner, Her Honour Jacquie Harkins, faced and her sensitivity in handling a significant and challenging inquest.
The CAA has restrained comments on this terrible episode; however, it is now appropriate that we should raise our concerns that can be considered as an adjunct to the Coroners recommendations.
We acknowledge that the findings of the Coroner are generally sound, but we are of the view that they have not gone far enough. Technology-based protection, the issue of Victoria Police Culture, as it then was, and the culpability issues have not been fully addressed.
The CAA is disappointed that the opportunity to use technology has been again overlooked. Since 2016, the CAA has been encouraging the State of Victoria to adopt new technology to avoid just this sort of incident. https://caainc.org.au/the-g-tag-a-new-paradigm-in-community-safety/.
The technology we refer to can stop or disable a vehicle that poses a public risk. The technology capable of this already exists in many new vehicles and the components that function well, have been in the commercial space for many years, it only needs coordination to achieve this resource for the community good.
The application of this technology will save lives now and into the future.
The Bourke street massacre was predictable and inevitable. Given overseas experiences that vehicles would be used as a weapon, either against an individual or many. Whether motivated by ideology or mental instability, there will always be the risk of somebody deciding to use a vehicle as a weapon, and it will happen again. Likewise, it cannot be discounted that criminals will resort to the vehicle as a weapon in certain circumstances.
We again call on the Government to look seriously at the CAA G-Tag proposal.
We were also concerned at the focus of the Coroner on the lower ranks of Victoria Police when referring to a negative culture.
We think this criticism avoids the real problem within Victoria Police that contributed substantially to police failures but has not received the attention the failure deserves.
The coroner overlooked the equation of 452 + 1 + 40 x 10 = 0, even though it looks wrong.
That equation represents the number of Commissioned Officers in Victoria Police, plus one Chief Commissioner who had a staff of forty at the time who must have known of this incident or should have. The ten represents the duration of the event in hours and the zero, the number of Officers who took command.
It beggars belief that with over four hundred and fifty Commissioned Officers of Inspector and above within Victoria Police, not one felt that they should take command, or inquire who was in command of a serious incident that spanned some ten hours.
It was left to an Air Observer in the Police Helicopter to issue decisive instructions for action in Bourke Street. Not an Officer to be seen or heard.
Every Police Commissioned Officer should accept a moral responsibility to refer to their diary and determine what they were doing for that critical ten hours. Then where appropriate, reflect on their failure to the Police members involved, all Victorians, and in particular the six who died, the twenty-seven injured and all those adversely impacted by this incident because of a lack of leadership.
Then each Officer should then undertake some serious introflexion as to whether they have honoured the Commission they hold and the Force they serve.
Therein lays the cultural flaw, a failure to take responsibility, a failure to take command and a failure to accept responsibility. The officers are paid the big dollars in the organisation but are exposed to the least risk, which must change.
Leadership must be reinstated.
The much-hackneyed phrase, ‘a creeping assumption’ has eroded the Command and Control that the operational police are entitled to expect from their Officers and leaders‘, that erosion has caused the Commissioned Officers role to morph into one that avoids accountability and responsibility, both traits they expect their subordinates to display.
This phenomenon is the root cause of the overall problem, and the responsibility for allowing this assumption to evolve rests with only one person, the Chief Commissioner of that day.
The removal of all Officers from direct operational Supervision has been a major structural failure. There is no longer direct command support of senior police to the operational realities faced on the ground by police day in day out. This disconnect has an adverse effect on the organisation as the senior ranks lose touch with the issues faced by their staff.
It is disappointing that the Coroner did not lay the blame where it should lay instead of generally skirting around accountability.
This disaster is falling into the big basket with a number of other substantial failures of Government and or its agencies where nobody is held to account.
The failure to hold people to account for their actions, or lack thereof, is a disgrace.
Did Victoria Police apologise for failing the victims?
Yet again, it was left to a Senior Constable during the Inquest to deliver the sort of apology that the victim’s relatives needed, and to which they were entitled.
Chief Commissioner Ashton should have issued that apology at the Inquest in person, and it will be to his eternal shame that he did not.
It may bring the downfall of a few Departmental heads and their Political masters before the penny will drop that their comfortable jobs and huge salaries are not a gratuity from the people whose taxes provide the largess they enjoy. We expect a quid pro quô; do your job and make sure the part of the organisation you are charged with leading, functions to best practise, because, if not, your tenure should be far from guaranteed – that is accountability.
We are confident that Chief Commissioner Patton will move rapidly to address many of these issues and we call on the Government to support the Chief in this endeavor.
Additionally, we call on the Government to legislate the mandatory installation in all vehicles of the GPS technology described in our G-tag proposal, with the creation of an allied facility to operate the system.
A world-first that will contribute to Victoria being again the state of Innovation.
by CAA | Nov 4, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
Fixed four-year terms for the Victorian Parliament were introduced almost 20 years ago. The rationale was simple – to provide certainty about the date of the next election and prevent Premiers from gaming the system by calling snap elections at a time that suits them politically. After almost 20 years, we are in a position to state that it has certainly achieved the first, but I believe it is only partially successful on the second.
In relation to the second aim, it has prevented Premiers calling snap elections at a time that advantages them, but it has clearly failed to prevent a Premier from gaming the system. All it has done is force a change of strategy. Now, instead of calling an election on the back of some good polls or opposition turmoil, a Premier can do all of the tough stuff in the first two or at most three years of the fixed term and ignore any howls of outrage, knowing that in year four, the charm offensive can begin. Roll out the funding announcements, the grants to favoured organisations and the promotion to important positions for leaders of key groups. The Grinch becomes Santa Claus and suddenly, courtesy of the famous short memory of voters, the government is back in favour and cruising to victory.
During the Grinch phase, The Premier can ignore the howls of protest for a simple reason. He or she cannot be forced to an election. The same legislation that gave us fixed four-year terms also gave Premiers an impregnable position. While they maintain the support of their own party they are safe. An election can only be called if the House passes a “No confidence” motion (and that won’t happen while the Premier has control of the governing party) or if the Upper House blocks a Bill the Premier deems important – and a Premier is going to do that only if it suits the government politically. In the unlikely event that the Government is in a minority and relies on the support of a small number of cross-benchers, the Premier will already have a signed agreement from them for support for both the budget and “No confidence” motions. This support will, of course, have a range of “goodies” attached to it to ensure compliance. In the past, it has included the return of a passenger train and water for a river.
The use of emergency powers may compound the issues outlined. By declaring a State of Emergency or a State of Disaster, a Premier may effectively dispense with the Cabinet process and effectively sideline Parliament. These two bodies are keystones of the Westminster democratic system. They are designed to be forums which advise and support the Premier, but which also constrain and temper a Premier’s ambitions or excesses. Without them, people’s rights and freedoms can be extinguished at the stroke of a pen. Who knows, no-one may remember whose pen signed the paper.
Thus what seemed like a sensible reform to remove a perceived fault in our democratic process appears to have its own inherent flaws.
It does not take much imagination to see how badly these powers may be misused. Not all despots seize power by force, quite a few have been freely elected then subsequently over-stepped the boundaries.
I believe Victoria needs a safety valve to cope with such a situation. One option is the Recall Petition. These operate in differing ways in Europe, the USA, Canada, Asia and South America. It is a limited form of direct democracy – one which firmly entrenches power in the hands of the people, not the government. This is as it should be, after all, they were elected to serve those very people.
In essence, the Recall process allows petitioners to force an election, by gathering the required number of signatures supporting the call. It can apply to an individual MP triggering a by-election or to the government, causing a general election.
While the application of Recall to specific MPs is effective in dealing with individual cases of corruption or malfeasance, the situation outlined above requires a whole of parliament approach. This currently exists in Bavaria where a petition signed by 1 million voters will trigger an election within 6 weeks. Like Victoria, in Bavaria the Landtag (Parliament) has fixed four-year terms. Bavaria has a population of 13 million, so a similar provision in Victoria (pop 6.4 million) would need 500,000 signatures. Obviously, this is a herculean task, but if the situation were grave enough, I believe it could be achieved.
The mere existence of a Recall provision may be all that is needed. No government would want to face one, so they are much more likely to heed the voice of the people. They are also likely to be more protective of traditional democratic rights and liberties if the potential of a recall petition was waved. If its mere existence is not enough, the actual launch of a petition would send a shiver down the spine of the despotic or the corrupt. The daily reporting of signature numbers would have a salutary effect.
Bavaria is evidence of this effect – there has never been an election as a result of a successful recall petition there, although in 1924, the Landtag voluntarily dissolved itself in the face of a petition. A similar thing happened in two other German states.
The Community Advocacy Alliance believes a Recall process will improve the strength of Victoria’s democracy and improve governance. If you would like to support this call, we have a petition running at https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-the-legislative-council-of-victoria-give-democracy-back-to-the-people-with-recall-elections?redirect=false
Steve McArthur
CAA Board Member.
by CAA | Nov 1, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
2nd November 2020
The COVID 19 pandemic has resulted in many people feeling palpable anger towards the Government, and Victoria Police has copped its fair share as the visual function of the Governments decrees. Some of the criticism of Police is justifiable and regrettable, but, when looking at the facts, perhaps the community should not judge Police so harshly.
The first waves of backlash against Police started with the Back Lives Matter Demonstration response. Predominantly that was the Government offering tacit approval leaving Police in an invidious position.
The establishment of the Quarantine Hotels came next, and it has been well ventilated that the then Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton played a ‘part’, in Police not being used. The depth and acumen of that ‘part’, will be judged by others and is probably central to the Quarantine management issue.
The view of the CAA is that the Police should have been used, at least initially.
The Premier formed a Cabinet Sub-committee of eight to manage the Corvid Hotel Quarantine initiative. That the services of the body trained to deal with all crisis situations, Emergency Management Victoria, was almost wholly ignored was in our view, a grave mistake.
Clearly, many in positions of authority do not understand the difference between the Primary responders and the Disaster management functions. The blurring of the management of this disaster by ad hoc arrangements has a lot to do with the failures.
The response to disasters, if you want the best outcome possible is, leave it to the experts and keep the Politicians out, they have a crucial role to play in Disaster response, but that does not mean running the Disaster Coordination function.
Every part of this disaster response was done, ‘on a wing and a prayer’ by people without any disaster management training or experience. What could possibly go wrong with that approach? Police were left to pick up the pieces.
The function of a Police service, as their charter demands, it to protect the safety of the community and not to do so is an abrogation of their responsibility. The community was rightly angered as it became known that the COVID spike was caused by a failure in the Quarantine security process when using Police could have mitigated the problem.
Police did not design the restrictions that were placed on the community, the Government did, allegedly operating on Medical advice. Even the draconian Curfew was not instigated by Police; albeit that Police were initially blamed for requesting it. A Claim later debunked.
Police were left to enforce draconian restrictions, on the instructions of the Chief Health Officer which Victoria Police were obliged to enforce under the rules of the State of Emergency and the Declaration of a Disaster by the Government.
Penalties to be imposed on those breaching rules were decided and imposed by the Government. The now Chief Commissioner, Shane Patton was personally evaluating fines, and where appropriate exercising discretion, leading by example.
However, there was little room for the exercise of Police discretion in many incidents Police were faced with, and that was totally down to the individual’s behaviour.
With the litany of errors in the management of this disaster, it is understandable that Police were, on occasions, not prepared to use their discretion should they be held responsible for the further spread of this virus. Police were doing their duty, and they should not be derided for so doing.
The Chief Commissioner has said recently, that he is unable to determine how many prosecutions will ultimately occur because the Force is currently evaluating a large number of ‘pleas’, from those who feel they were treated harshly or those who simply cannot afford to pay the fine.
The CAA is proud to stand beside the Victoria Police members who did and continue to do, a magnificent job in exceptional and totally unprecedented circumstances.
Could the police members have done better? Probably. Did they make some mistakes? Yes, and the organisation and members regret that, but when considered overall, it was a top effort by our Victoria Police.
by CAA | Oct 30, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
If you live in Victoria, have you:
Lost your Freedom? Lost your job? Lost your business due to COVID lock-down?
Can’t play sport or attend church, can’t visit your family, can’t go out with your mates due to lock-down?
Can’t do anything about it? Frustrated? Angry?
No way out?
Yes there is!!
Victoria needs some direct democracy. This would give us the right to have a ‘Recall Election,’ if the Government of the day was working against the best interest of the public of this State.
Governments can become corrupt, incompetent and dictatorial. Currently, there is no way to force such a government to hold an election. We are stuck with them for four long years. Recall Election legislation will allow citizens to demand an early election and require the Governor to make it happen. .It works in Europe, the USA and Canada.
A ‘Recall’ may be a big stick we rarely use, but it is reassuring to have one.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) is a non- political aligned group of concerned Victorians who believe Victorians deserve better.
by CAA | Oct 20, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
21st October 2020
A 9.00 am shift for 3844 on a Saturday morning at a country Police Station started well enough. Still, the date of this shift and what was about to unfold is etched in the memory of many of the people directly affected, especially those who lost everything and the first responders who tried to avoid the carnage that unfolded.
This was Black Saturday, the 7th of February 2009, where fires raged across the State, and 173 people perished, 39 of them around Marysville.
Everybody was worried, Premier John Brumby had warned Victorians the previous days that this particular Saturday could be disastrous, as all indicators had rated higher than any time previously – the risk factor, was off the scale.
3844’s station got word of the Murrindindi Mill Fire that was heading towards Maryville.
Everything about that day as it evolved was horrifying, the unbelievably high temperatures by mid-morning with the extremely low humidity already making it difficult to breathe, and every intake of air seemed to burn. It did not take long, and smoke was added to the mix.
Police have an inbuilt mechanism that helps them to deal with these situations because they will not let their colleagues and the people that are in danger down under any circumstances. That draws them towards the disaster to deal with whatever occurs, suppressing their natural flight response and the occurrences of this catastrophic event unfolding in front of them would evoke the strongest flight response possible.
Everything on this day was telling the members they were in for it.
Up until this point, it was thought the fires could miss Marysville; however, precautions had started to be taken, with people evacuated to a nearby town out of immediate danger, but the catastrophe that unfolded with the 5.00 pm wind change was as unexpected as it was cataclysmic.
3844 ended up at both of the refuges where most everybody were, understandably, in a state of near panic. Families divided, concerns for people who had not made it to the refuge, and the member believed that one if not more colleagues were unaccounted for and could have perished.
3844’s duty was to reassure and show leadership or others would perish. Subsequently, the heroism of these unaccounted-for members was acknowledged with bravery awards, as should be the case.
The role of 3844 irrespective of any personal feelings or misgivings, fear or foreboding, was to be stoic above the mayhem, provide with the other Police, leadership for the people at that refuge, and above all else ensure they didn’t try to leave because 3844 knew that anybody heading back to the fire ground would have faced certain death.
Up until this time, there was very limited information available to Police on the ground, radios and mobile phones were at best problematic.
The 5.00 pm wind change fixed that, obliterating all communications in a flash, so the Police were left without any outside contact and just had to do their best.
All the police members directly involved put the welfare of citizens ahead of their own, true acts of bravery in extreme circumstances.
Clearly, unless you were there, you would have no hope of relating to the circumstances the Police, and other first responders, found themselves in on that day and where they acquitted themselves so well.
A matter that still burns at 3844, and no doubt others, was while they were risking their life dealing with a catastrophic event, their Chief Commissioner, it was reported, spent time with her biographer—probably waxing lyrical about her perceived career highlights, a trip to the hairdresser and dining out with friends.
It would seem that Chief Commissioner Nixon either did not heed the warning of the Premier or chose to ignore it. By law, the Chief Commissioner was the State Disaster Coordinator.
We may never know, but this behaviour at that time will be a legacy Nixon will never escape. As 3844 opined, “it was bad enough, but not having the Chief at the helm was devastating.”
This was aggravated when the police members subsequently found out what she had been doing. At the same time, death and destruction that she knew about, rained down on Victoria, does not sit well with many Police but particularly those on the front line that day.
The Chief Commissioner did end up arriving at the scene a day or so late and proceeded to ‘mother’ the members presumably in a futile and embarrassing attempt to atone for her poor leadership.
Her approach was viewed by the members as highly inappropriate, her condescending manner was embarrassing, “Can I get you a cup of tea dear”, with her arm around a member who shunned the approach very abruptly.
3844 approached a drink cooler for a bottle of water, and the Chief tried to intervene,” Can I get something for you, dear”. The member grabbed the bottle and took off, should the CCP attempt another cuddle.
In the aftermath, the Prime Minister visited the devastation, and 3844 saw the dignitaries coming on foot towards where 3844 was stationed and knew what they were about to encounter.
The member took the initiative to take up a position, which would shield the dignitaries from a grotesque appearance of a deceased person sitting in a burnt-out car that had not been moved because it was still a crime scene.
During the fires, 3844 was sent on leave as her house, and her family were still under threat from the fires. However benevolent this gesture, “you can’t do both”, 3844 felt she had done something wrong adding to the overall duress of the situation.
The horror had taken its toll, and 3844 was diagnosed with PTSD when seeking the services of a Marriage Guidance Counsellor who recognised the symptoms sometime after the fires. The member’s marriage was a casualty.
It has been a long road back, with periods of sustained and intense treatment, including hospitalisation and further complicated by other health issues.
The member, however, was back at work and getting on top of everything, and treatment was going very well with the member’s Psychologist quite happy with the return to work. Although no doubt both were optimistic, there was a way to go.
3844 has deep and unshakable respect and admiration for all colleagues and managers up to Senior Sergeant and then only an odd Officer, the rest not trustworthy or worthy of respect, was the member’s assessment.
After all that the member had gone through in the battle to return to work, the member was required to report to the Police Medical Officer (PMO).
That meeting did not go well with the PMO most put out, accusing 3844 of avoiding an earlier appointment (the member was away on leave when the appointment was made and had no knowledge of it).
What concerned 3844 was that the PMO had not consulted with her clinicians, a GP and the Psychologist responsible for 3844’s treatment in breach of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. Additionally, both clinicians had sought to contact the PMO but were ignored.
The member was concerned that the PMO had been ‘nobbled’ from above so that the member’s position could be freed up.
It would appear from what 3844 described, that the PMO either had not read or chose to ignore the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. In addition, the expert Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD by nine eminent specialists published by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and endorsed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Heavy hitters by any yardstick. A professional standard no less.
The PMO signed the Career ending report four days after receiving an email from 3844 “questioning the lack of contact with her clinicians”. 3844 also referenced the Simone Carroll incident in 2015, (Sadly Simone took her life with a service firearm) 3844 received an email the next day.
Career over and you are now a WorkCover responsibility.
That this news was delivered by email is disgusting.
The expectation would be that the PMO would have at least the courtesy of consulting with the professionals responsible for the member’s care and a plan developed to deal with the negative impact this news may have on the member.
At the very least, this news should have been delivered in a clinical environment with support mechanisms available.
And, that is how VicPol treats their wounded members.
Understandably, 3844 felt that she was just a number to be expended to free up a position to be filled by another number. Potentially 3844 had another twenty years to contribute to the organisation if she could continue to recover.
The fires may not have burnt 3844 in a physical sense, but the member sacrificed good health and now lives with the consequences.
Perhaps because the scars are not visible may explain but not excuse this deplorable treatment.
It should not be lost that the remembrance service in 2019 of the fires ten years previously attended by 3844 and many colleagues coincided within weeks of the member’s ill health termination making this outcome even crueller.
Many of the same people the member dealt with during the fires met the member again to express gratitude, oblivious to the pain the member had suffered.
One of the glaring anomalies that is a common thread in all the CAA, PTSD Case Studies are the management failures.
What appears to be absolutely lost on the organisation is that these people are sick. The organisation does not take care of its own.
It is like the organisation requires the patient to drive the ambulance.
The good PMO that delivered the news to 3844 by email has found another calling and resigned as a PMO which given his performance is a positive step for other sick members.
3844 has resigned to the fact that service to VicPol is at an end, but the organisation still mucks her around.
3844 was initially given formal Notice of Discharge at a date days away. That Notice was then withdrawn as it was in breach of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013.
VicPol needs to get its act together, take responsibility for these debacles and fix it, it is not too hard, these are sick people.
The lack of compassion, decency and respect by an organisation that once boasted “We care” is beyond comprehension.
3844 was ill-health retired on the 19th of October 2019, ending a 15-year career with Victoria Police.
The only glimmer of compassion was 3844 was allowed to choose the retirement date, completing fifteen years of service. Though 3844 could have fought the ending of her career, she did not have the energy for that fight with Victoria Police.
The common thread through the various stories we have seen, some published many we cannot, is that the management of Victoria Police in each case appears flawed.
With much fanfare, Victoria Police in recent years has trumpeted its efforts to help people living with PTSD, but prevention is a concept that seems to have been ignored. The new Chief Commissioner who has already indicated that he understands the importance of prevention in Policing and it will not be a big step to apply that principle to PTSD.
Ironically, 3844 has now volunteered to be part of the CAA Police Veterans In Schools Program.
by CAA | Oct 6, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
6th of October 2020
Trying to discover who made the fateful decision to firstly employ, and then fail to manage the Security Guards used at the Quarantine Hotels, is indeed a very vexed question that takes some deft picking apart.
We know, for example, that the Premier announced the Victorian Government policy on the Quarantine Hotels program and in doing so told us that Police, Military, and Private Security would be used.
No ‘creeping assumption’ here, straight forward fact.
So we know where the use of Private Security started, albeit the third of the options to be used.
After the policy announcement we are told, the Public Service then has to ‘operationalise’ that Policy – nothing particularly startling or wrong in that.
But here is the murky bit.
We have learned throughout the Lawyer X Inquiry and the Quarantine Inquiry that Amnesia is as contagious as COVID amongst senior Government executives.
Former Chief Commissioner Ashton, unfortunately, has a particularly nasty strain of this amnesia contagion. Unless there is written proof, it would seem that everything else is a blur that Ashton cannot recall.
That brings us to the mystery of the ‘6 minutes’ where Ashton’s position changed from one of inquiry, at the start; and six minutes later, to one of authority that VicPol would not be used.
What happened in that six minutes is critical if we are ever to find out the truth.
As far as we can conclude, either Ashton took the six minutes to compose and change to the assertive tone of his own accord, or there was a conversation with somebody that gave him the confidence to exercise assertiveness.
What we do know of Ashton, responsibility is not one of his strong suits as demonstrated in the Coate Inquiry, and before that in the Lawyer X Royal Commission, so the chances that his strategic change was done without, what he determined as, rock-solid support, is so unlikely it can be dismissed.
We also know that anybody who stands up to or disagrees with the Premier are committing political suicide and will be thrown in the freezer or under a bus or both.
So that just about eliminates that this action by Ashton was his own initiative.
What we can also reasonably conclude is that whomever Ashton spoke with, whether by phone, email or otherwise, was somebody that had the ostensible authority. That only his police phone was checked still leaves the option of a ‘burner phone’ or any of the myriad of ways of communication available on the internet.
Given that all the prominent senior people who have denied on oath any involvement in the decision, that only leaves the Premier, and the one unidentified person who could speak as for the Premier with authority who could give Ashton the confidence he displayed. The Coate Inquiry has seemingly overlooked that anonymous person.
Is this an example of unelected and unaccountable political staff of the Premier’s office exercising authority beyond their remit? The one group not examined by the Coate inquiry.
It would be interesting to know what part any of them played in this artifice.
Ashton withholding the Police from the task was a deliberate action that has never been explained or justified. This is important, as using Police for Quarantine may well have avoided many of the subsequent deaths and severe lockdowns we have endured.
That the other aspect of Andrew’s policy on the management of the Quarantine facilities, that has not been explained, is why the Military was not used?
We know, contrary to what Andrews has claimed that a large number of Defence personnel were available.
Was the Premier misguided by somebody, did Ashton play a role in any part of perpetuating the myth of the unavailability of troops?
Or did the faceless staff play a role in these matters, perpetuating that myth?
To date, these critical questions have not been addressed in the public process of the Coate inquiry and to come to a conclusion, completing the task, all participants must be investigated properly.
The use of Private Security, in our view, was not a ‘creeping assumption’ but a series of deliberate actions.
There are over 800 Victorians whose lives have been cut short by this, contagion the seventh-highest death toll in Australia since the country was founded.
Surpassed only by the Small Pox epidemic in 1779 with 2600 deaths, the Scarlet Fever Epidemic of 1876 – 8000 deaths. The Typhoid Epidemic of 1910 – 2000 deaths, the Flu Epidemic of 1920 – 12000 deaths, Polio in 1955 – 1013 deaths and then COVID.
The families of the victims of this COVID pandemic deserve an answer.
It will also be interesting to see if the Coroner, His Honour John Cain Jnr, will open an inquest on the matter sometime soon. As these deaths are within his jurisdiction.
Failure to do so would be a further travesty that victims must endure.
by CAA | Oct 5, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
5th October 2020
Why is it important to look more closely at the issues surrounding the implementation of the Quarantine debacle on the cusp of the debate over the Omnibus Bill that is to be presented to the Upper House of parliament this week – it is a matter of trust.
The Omnibus Bill has one extraordinary and very dangerous part. The establishment of a Health Department Police Force – euphemistically called ‘Authorised Officers’.
The Quarantine debacle was not the finest hour for this Government. Now the same Government Department that was responsible for the operations of the Quarantine Hotels, the source of nearly all infections responsible for nearly seven hundred deaths, the seventh-highest number of deaths of any disaster in Australia’s history, wants to build its own Police Force, what could possibly go wrong.
‘Trust us’, is the plaintive cry of the Government, but trust credits are in short supply.
This part of the Bill may also be a Government tactic. While we are all focusing on the ‘Authorised Officers’, part of the Bill the rest may sail through extending the Governments unfettered powers for another six months and with current COVID trends, that is totally unnecessary and moreover dangerous.
The Reasons Party’s position in the first tranche of this legislation that it is extended, in monthly increments, was sensible and should have been adopted.
We have also seen the dismantling of our democracy and the removal of checks and balances, so to have a Government Police Force is a step too far towards permanent totalitarianism – something we are enduring now.
The normal scrutiny to keep things in check have been supervened.
The majority of the Government Cabinet has been sidelined; the Government backbenchers have also been sin-binned, lest they challenge the autocracy, and they collectively are all mere passengers.
The Governments party machine has also been stymied as the democratic function of the Government’s own Party has been suspended while the issue of the Branch stacking allegations is sorted. So, party rank and file are silenced and cannot challenge or influence the Government. A sceptic may view the suspension of the Party as a convenience for the Premier.
We note, the Liberal Party has conducted an audit of their membership to address any vote stacking without the necessity of suspending their party function, something Labour could have done but chose the option to close the machine down, very convenient.
We are confident that we as a State would not be in the mess we currently are, had the Labor party members not been silenced, whether they are elected members on the outer, or rank and file, there are many, many, good people in Labor who would speak up if they could. Under the current regime to speak up would be political suicide, such are the times we endure.
But back to the Omnibus Bill and its sting in the tail. Given the makeup of the Upper House, the Government is going to require a handful of the Independents to get this Bill up, so the decision that allows this Bill through including the new Police Force, rests with them.
We are relying on the independents to protect us from the tyranny of this bold step toward totalitarianism, a Government with its own enforcement arm as distinct from Victoria Police which is independent. Although many argue that VicPol is politicised, we do not subscribe to that view, particularly under the new Chief Commissioner.
If the independents fail us, they will be held to account by the Electorate. Their decision will be critical for their future participation in Government. They will not survive, if by their vote the Electorate is subjected to another six months, until April 2021, of the State of Emergency. You can guarantee their constituents will be well reminded.
There are currently about sixty ‘Authorised Officers’ working in the Health Department, and we never knew of their existence, so well do they do their job. But, this new proposal, that is recruiting, anybody makes a mockery of these people who are all tertiary educated in the appropriate disciplines, where the new breed, will receive two weeks training to achieve the same status.
It also should be noted that the ‘Authorised Officer’ positions have been already advertised ahead of the Bill being passed, such is the hubris of this Government.
We also do not know whether we will see hundreds or thousands of these poorly trained super-powerful individuals skulking around our community?
We are confident that there will be plenty of applicants for the positions as many Security Guards are now out of work, and will come with invaluable experience?
The CAA calls on the Upper House to strike this dangerous Omnibus Bill down.
by CAA | Sep 30, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
30th September 2020
The hotel quarantine mess has been subject to judicial inquiry and we await its findings with interest. CAA’s focus is not on health but on Victoria’s legal system and this particular legal process, the Quarantine of persons entering Victoria seems fated to be largely ineffectual – but some points should be made now.
1. Joint Accountability. Much was made of so-called joint accountability, plainly in an effort to diffuse the blame attributable to any one person. We say joint accountability implies joint responsibility. Those high officials who stood aside and let this mess unfold – over so prolonged a period – all have been shown up as grossly incompetent or worse, and in the interests of the people of this State all should be sacked.
2. If we do not know who decided to engage private security personnel in a role for which they were untrained, unprepared, unsupervised and un-equipped then at least we must surely know that many of those “jointly accountable” people could not have avoided knowing the decision was doomed to fail from the outset. And without any shadow of doubt many of those people watched that failure unfold without attempting to take corrective action.
3. We frankly do not believe that such former or then-present high ranking police officers as Messrs Ashton and Crisp could have been unaware of the actual suitability of those private security personnel – and certainly they could not have been unaware of the crucial need for sound selection, training, supervision and control of such personnel.
4. We frankly find it incredible that the most senior public servants of this State failed to tell the Premier what they and every person involved in crisis management in Australia routinely knows – that the Australian Defence Force has an incredibly diverse and multi-skilled capacity able and ready to be rapidly deployed in aid of the civil authorities in a time of great need.
5. And something else we find simply incredible:
• so soon after there had been loud criticism of abuses committed by private security personnel in their ordinary roles;
• so soon after an inquiry into those alleged abuses, but without any remedies having been applied to those faults;
• NOT ONE of the “jointly responsible” officials who countenanced the employment of such personnel as quarantine officers during a fatal epidemic – countenanced without demur, it must be said – has been replaced as incompetent;
• the Government is now sponsoring proposed legislation to extend the power and reach of the Health Department finally identified as responsible for the quarantine mess!
Accountability implies the acceptance of responsibility and that implies paying a penalty for failures of responsibly carrying out duties for which one has been engaged. But who is paying for the hotel non-quarantine mess?
We are – the long-suffering public of Victoria. And CAA says this is simply not acceptable.
by CAA | Sep 27, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
28th September 2020
The proposed Omnibus Bill by the Government of Victoria will give unfettered powers to any person that the Department of Health and Community Services (DHHS) deems suitable, and the suitability criteria are so exceptionally wide they will provide a recipe for disaster on a number of fronts.
One would have thought that we have had enough management disasters, particularly by DHHS, without letting loose a mother of all draconian enforcement mechanisms on the people of Victoria.
To give context to the powers proposed, there is an argument that the Powers of these Authorised Officers exceed the powers vested in highly trained officers responsible for National Terrorism.
The DHHS has not endeared itself to Victorians with the number of missteps that have resulted in the unnecessary or premature death of well over seven hundred Victorians. That has to be a number to question the competence of the Department charged with looking after our health. Most alarmingly, nobody seems to take responsibility for these calamities and the subsequent loss of life.
To put this into perspective the number of COVID deaths in Australia is currently 851 with 763 of those being lost in Victoria, the overwhelming majority during the ‘second wave’ when the deficiencies of the DHHS were laid bare.
It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what the management and functional failures of one of the State’s biggest bureaucracies has, or has, not achieved.
Starting with the hotel quarantine debacle, responsible for 99% of the second wave infections and deaths. That really is a doozy.
Then we have Contact tracing operated on Post-it stickers and note pads, and we are told that it will be a few more weeks (as we come out of this wave) for the system to be upgraded and operational. Roughly ten months after a need was obvious – we should name this Department LDHHS, Lightening Department of Human Health and Services in recognition of their warp speed responses…
And we have a Curfew, thanks to an upgraded low, to middle-ranking public servant, who believed it to be the right thing without consulting the Police or the Chief Health Officer, really, is that how our lives are managed?
We have forsaken our liberties and human rights based on this flawed mechanism for decision making – unbelievable,
That the Emergency Response Officer she replaced was on leave is indicative of the commitment of these public servants in a disaster. Please explain why key people were allowed to take leave during this very serious Pandemic?
That same Health Department, with a litany of failures, is clearly in denial over its mishandling of critical functions, now wants to establish and operate another Police force.
This concept is sure to fail. Giving untrained (excluding two weeks induction) individuals selected by people who have no Policing or enforcement training themselves, and then unleashing these people on our community is an outrage of a proportion that defies descriptors that would clearly enunciate the danger.
All of this, when there already exists legislated power to achieve a similar outcome that has a number of implicit protections for Victorians.
Section 27 of the Police Act 2013 gives the Chief Commissioner the power to appoint people as police constables in these circumstances, either part or full time and for these specific circumstances.
Again it would seem the DHHS, a power unto itself, has headed off into uncharted territory without even considering the adverse consequences.
This effort rates up with some of the outrageous storylines of ‘Yes Minister,’ a parody of the current events.
Unbelievable the solution was so simple, but it now looks more like a power play of the titan Government Departments.
The Chief Commissioner already has the power and the appropriate infrastructure to manage and train the Authorised Officers for the task if required.
The Chief Commissioner can also appoint the members of the Military as Constables for the purposes of this disaster which would be a far more effective and sensible strategy.
And if you thought that DHHS couldn’t do anything more stupid they have advertised for Retired Police to become Authorised Officers.
Stupid because the vast majority of Retired Police would be over 60 years of age and are entering the danger high-risk zone for contracting the disease, and part of the job description is dealing with non-compliant carriers of the disease
Maybe they see these people as expendable.
They are certainly treating the rest of us like idiots.
by CAA | Sep 27, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
28th 0f September 2020
The proposed Omnibus Bill by the Government of Victoria will give unfettered powers to any person that the Department of Health and Community Services (DHHS) deems suitable, and the suitability criteria are so exceptionally wide they will provide a recipe for disaster on a number of fronts.
One would have thought that we have had enough management disasters, particularly by DHHS, without letting loose a mother of all draconian enforcement mechanisms on the people of Victoria.
To give context to the powers proposed, there is an argument that the Powers of these Authorised Officers exceed the powers vested in highly trained officers responsible for National Terrorism.
The DHHS has not endeared itself to Victorians with the number of missteps that have resulted in the unnecessary or premature death of well over seven hundred Victorians. That has to be a number to question the competence of the Department charged with looking after our health. Most alarmingly, nobody seems to take responsibility for these calamities and the subsequent loss of life.
To put this into perspective the number of COVID deaths in Australia is currently 851 with 763 of those being lost in Victoria, the overwhelming majority during the ‘second wave’ when the deficiencies of the DHHS were laid bare.
It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what the management and functional failures of one of the State’s biggest bureaucracies has, or has, not achieved.
Starting with the hotel quarantine debacle, responsible for 99% of the second wave infections and deaths. That really is a doozy.
Then we have Contact tracing operated on Post-it stickers and note pads, and we are told that it will be a few more weeks (as we come out of this wave) for the system to be upgraded and operational. Roughly ten months after a need was obvious – we should name this Department LDHHS, Lightening Department of Human Health and Services in recognition of their warp speed responses…
And we have a Curfew, thanks to an upgraded low, to middle-ranking public servant, who believed it to be the right thing without consulting the Police or the Chief Health Officer, really, is that how our lives are managed?
We have forsaken our liberties and human rights based on this flawed mechanism for decision making – unbelievable,
That the Emergency Response Officer she replaced was on leave is indicative of the commitment of these public servants in a disaster. Please explain why key people were allowed to take leave during this very serious Pandemic?
That same Health Department, with a litany of failures, is clearly in denial over its mishandling of critical functions, now wants to establish and operate another Police force.
This concept is sure to fail. Giving untrained (excluding two weeks induction) individuals selected by people who have no Policing or enforcement training themselves, and then unleashing these people on our community is an outrage of a proportion that defies descriptors that would clearly enunciate the danger.
All of this, when there already exists legislated power to achieve a similar outcome that has a number of implicit protections for Victorians.
Section 27 of the Police Act 2013 gives the Chief Commissioner the power to appoint people as police constables in these circumstances, either part or full time and for these specific circumstances.
Again it would seem the DHHS, a power unto itself, has headed off into uncharted territory without even considering the adverse consequences.
This effort rates up with some of the outrageous storylines of ‘Yes Minister,’ a parody of the current events.
Unbelievable the solution was so simple, but it now looks more like a power play of the titan Government Departments.
The Chief Commissioner already has the power and the appropriate infrastructure to manage and train the Authorised Officers for the task if required.
The Chief Commissioner can also appoint the members of the Military as Constables for the purposes of this disaster which would be a far more effective and sensible strategy.
And if you thought that DHHS couldn’t do anything more stupid they have advertised for Retired Police to become Authorised Officers.
Stupid because the vast majority of Retired Police would be over 60 years of age and are entering the danger high-risk zone for contracting the disease, and part of the job description is dealing with non-compliant carriers of the disease
Maybe they see these people as expendable.
They are certainly treating the rest of us like idiots.
by CAA | Sep 13, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
13th September 2020
There have been a number of developments in Policing during the COVID Pandemic, and we laud the proactive, pre-emptive moves against activists.
Under the stewardship of Chief Commissioner Patton the word, ‘Prevention ‘, now has some meaning.
We would argue, had that not been done, social unrest would be out of control by now; heaven knows, the Premier is doing his damnedest to stoke the fires of discontent.
The community accepted many of the draconian restrictions believing they were based on best medical/scientific advice, and now that has been exposed as a ‘Furphy’, anger is palpable.
The load will increase on Vitoria Police to keep the peace, as that anger is unlikely to dissipate proportionally to the lifting of restrictions. The delays in lifting most restrictions will feed the rage as the Government can no longer use the medical/science argument with any credibility.
Political mismanagement is not only endangering the community, but it puts the Police in a dangerous position as the risk to their own safety heightens.
The demands on the Chief Commissioner are onerous as he has not had the luxury of a passive transfer of leadership, and now he is faced with an even greater demand as we exit COVID.
It is very easy for Government to lift or apply a restriction, just, ‘flick the switch’, but the adjustments for business to comply are not simple, with supply lines and a myriad of other issues they need to deal with, and although the demands are different, policing has similar issues, which can be much more complex.
While a business needs to rebuild its customer base, some from scratch, so do the Police need to rebuild their relationships with the community.
We are of the view that Victoria Police members and the organization have done a really good job given the circumstances. Excluding the ‘potty-mouthed’, utterances of one Senior Executive, bringing discredit to the Uniform; we appreciate that many Police put themselves in harm’s way for our benefit. However, by necessity they have had to dip into their community credits.
Now the challenge for Victoria Police is to regain those credits by reconnecting with the community. Central to that reconnection is making sure the community understands the benefits of the proactive actions in relation to serious matters and understand that, while on the surface the police actions may seem over the top, but being open to the community with the steps that are taken to avoid erroneous pre-emptive actions is essential. That action is of itself proactive.
It is always better for the community that the police act to prevent crime rather than sit around waiting and then going about picking up the pieces, which until Patton was appointed seemed to have been the strategy.
The more effective proactive approach not only reduces the frequency and severity of crime, it dramatically reduces the number of people who have to deal with the trauma of crime as victims – that has to be a good thing?
We have seen Governments with their apparently endless access to resources stoking anger by failing to be frank and honest with the community. Policing faces an enormous challenge in this space; the approach Police adopt will define Policing for a long time to come.
by CAA | Sep 10, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
10th Sept. 2020
The additional crisis we now face, compounding the COVID pandemic, is a catastrophic trust deficit in the Government, not the Police. A deficit that transcends partisan politics within the community who will readily and severely mark down any politician that deliberately misleads them.
The touch paper has been put to the wick.
The revelation about the introduction of a curfew imposed by the Victorian Government as part of the COVID response has now been exposed as not based on any medical advice, as we were told.
The next question is whether this was a conclusion reached in modelling and output from the ‘Supercomputer’, and what other aspects of the restrictions are not based on medical advice? All data must now be released.
Dr Brian McNamee AO MBBS, FTSE, Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Labourites (CSL) in a wide-ranging critical expert assessment of the current Victorian response to the COVID Pandemic was particularly critical of the Curfew imposed as part of stage four.
He also called for the resignation of the Chief Commissioner quoted as saying,
(Dr McNamee)
“The problem is we’re all losing confidence because every time we learn something new, it isn’t what we
understood. Is it true that we’re mainly in Curfew because of the police force?”
(Journalist)
“THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING …”
(Dr McNamee)
“The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police should resign over that. That he imprisoned his fellow citizens not on
medical advice but for rostering convenience is such an abrogation of duty. I’m stunned. It’s shocking. It’s
wrong.”
As disturbed as the CAA is with the application of a curfew, and what amounts to half a step back from Martial Law, this has nothing to do with Victoria Police or more particularly the Chief Commissioner.
The Chief Commissioner has now publicly confirmed that Victoria Police did not request the Curfew and were nor consulted on it – this raises other serious questions. Just who, or is, anybody advising the Premier and why he didn’t the Premier seek advice from the most logical expert – the Chief Commissioner.
The police role in society is, among other things, to enforce the laws, they do not make them. They are purely the instrument and applier of rules made by the Government, as they should be.
The CAA share the community outrage against the draconian aspects of the COVID response but has empathy with the Chief Commissioner and all Police in Victoria having to enforce unrealistic and very unpopular rules.
But, that is the police task, and if the truth be known, the Police as members of the community share the community’s frustration but must put personal feelings aside and do their job.
The Premier has admitted that implementing the Curfew was not based on medical advice; it was his decision. It will be interesting how he obtains the authority to make such directions, isn’t it the role of the Chief Medical Officer who must decree by order? The Premiers only defence so far is that he is entitled to make decisions which may not necessarily comply strictly with the CMO’s order but follows his intent. This is a completely new slant on the interpretations of the Law. We are sure this will be fleshed out in the now inevitable Royal Commission that must now be called.
The Premier, by owning this decision, makes it his responsibility and the consequences of that decision rests with him, and him alone. There will be no going back now that he has ‘blown the gaff’, on himself.
The issue above all others is that the Premier misled (the most flattering descriptor) all Victorians because we all believed that the Curfew was implemented on medical advice as part of the COVID strategy.
Of most significance is that this deceit by the Premier now brings into sharp focus all the other components of the restrictions. How many of those are based on medical advice or are simply arbitrary impositions applied by the will of the Premier?
Were all the restrictions to activities that have very low or extremely low chances of transmission risk, applied on the medical advice of the Chief Medical Officer? Golf, Fishing, the 5k radius, unable to shop with a partner, unable to have an immediate relative visit, compulsory masks when out walking, all retail business closed, the list goes on, but we are entitled to know.
It is time that the Premier came clean with the truth whatever that is and ‘bell the cat’, because, at this stage, we do not know what to believe anymore.
by CAA | Sep 2, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
2nd September 2020
As the Lawyer X Royal Commission gets to the pointy end of its function, there will be many shocks, and we anticipate disbelief, that so many Police are accused of wrongdoing when they were just doing their job; or were they?
That the impact on the Legal fraternity has been comparatively minimal is also sure to upset many Police; however, the good Judge is just doing her job. This was never a Royal Commission into the Legal fraternity; albeit, many may argue that it should have been, it is a Royal Commission into the management of Police of Informers.
The Government, not the Judge, set up the terms of reference (what the Royal Commissioner is to do).
As far as we are aware, the Police Association never challenged or used their considerable political power to influence or attempt to widen of the terms of reference to include the Lawyers and or perhaps protect Police that was doing their job rather than facilitating the artifice.
The view of many Police is that the Police involved were just catching crooks and that it is disgraceful that this whole scandal has been manipulated into some sort of crime by Police, shifting focus from the crooks to Police.
Proponents of that argument do not understand our adversarial justice system that serves our democracy well.
This interpretation is both misleading and wrong. This is ‘Nobel cause corruption’ (the ends justifies the means) as unlawful as the normal interpretation of corruption. It diminishes the role of Police in our society, as has the behaviours of the Police executive that promoted and or failed to manage the Lawyer X calamity and whose leadership was lacking throughout.
With the eleventh-hour move by the Royal Commissioner, on the cusp of the release of the submissions from the Counsel Assisting (CA), the Commissioner declined to make public the names of those who the CA has decided to recommend adverse finding against, and the Offences they are alleged to have committed. The Commissioner indicated that although she had the power, the same restrictions will apply to her final report.
This move is significant as it will impact dramatically on any pleas by any person convicted of offences subsequent to this Royal Commission.
Reading some submissions by the key police executives of this artifice, they are portrayed as the pillars of Policing, incredible contributors of the highest integrity, it is nauseating, but clearly the groundwork for a sentence plea. (that says a lot)
The Royal Commissioner has just blown away a defence strategy that would enable lawyers to make great stay from the exposure of their client in the arena of public opinion.’ The severe damage done to their clients by public exposure must be mitigated in any penalty’.
The assertions in the media by former Chef Commissioner Ashton that the Lawyer X scandal would,’ pass the pub test’, and, sought to justify potentially corrupt activity by Victoria Police on the basis that, ‘the ends justify the means’, would have to be the outstanding legal, own goal, of this inquiry so far.
The good Judge has increased the likelihood of jail time for any Police or others convicted of an offence investigated by this Commission. She has ratcheted up the anti by a significant margin.
As this Commission plays out, it is worth remembering that Policing is an honourable profession and comes with some unique obligations coupled to the powers bestowed on every Police member, the Office of Constable.
Thankfully the Office does not come with, ‘the end justifies the means’.
It is worth reflecting on an extract of the Oath for Police Officers,
I will prevent to the best of my power all offences, and that while I continue to be a police officer, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties legally imposed on me faithfully and according to Law.
The Law that empowers Police must be regarded as sacrosanct by Police because to break those Laws or interfere in the due process of the Legal system is to breach the very oath that all Police are bound by.
The unlawful pursuit of criminals, ‘Noble corruption’, no matter how heinous the crime, only weakens the effectiveness of law enforcement and fades the policing function to be as criminal as those criminals pursued.
What is extremely disappointing is the failure of the Police executives that oversaw this fiasco to come forward to take responsibility and protect their subordinates or even apologise for their errors, but that will go to their character or lack thereof, for history to judge them. Contrition by the senior executives responsible seems in short supply.
Generally, the evidence from senior Police to the Royal Commission has the appearance that they were unaware (incompetent), or had no recollection (also incompetent).
Judge the unaware/no recollection issues they all seemed to suffer as you will, we are sure the Royal Commissioner has.
The question is where to from now?
We have some empathy for those Police that were doing their job as directed by the police management. In our view, they are not at fault and only Police would understand the influence of superiors in the Police hierarchal structure that the commission would be unfamiliar with.
Provided that they were truthful to the Royal Commission, and did not wantonly break the Law in the furtherance of some misguided view that,’ the ends justify the means’, knowing the means was unlawful; or offer blind subservience to superiors that they knowingly broke the Law to support.
Most of the CAA Police Board members have served through the aftermath of a Royal commission some more than once, but the organisation has on each occasion come through this type of scrutiny the better for it.
The future of the Force, post Lawyer X, will have some tribulations, but overall they will have minimal impact on the vast majority of Police and former Police who share any pain inflicted on Policing.
There will probably be some positives to come.
Significantly a strengthening of the functional role of the Office of Constable where the constables will have greater sway in determining the exercising of their powers. This will be accompanied by more accountability, however on balance that is a positive.
We anticipate there will be moves to strengthen the ability of a Police member to withdraw from undertaking a function, even under direction, that they believe unlawful, without consequences.
There will also be the conundrums of how VicPol should react to those that have received adverse findings.
The difficulty with serving members is that they cannot possibly continue in their service after an adverse finding, the public would not accept that, Some may be charged with offences and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the arbiter in these matters, may not choose to prosecute some of them. There may be no other way but to suspend the members. Some members may face serious disciplinary charges as well.
Of equal or even more significant concern is who is going to pick up the Legal tab for what will now be, in the best-case scenario, a long and slow legally expensive process to finalise these matter in the Court system?
There is an argument that the legal costs incurred at the Royal Commission should be carried by the Crown, but the goalposts change significantly when the members and ex-members attract adverse findings.
We are inclined to the view that the Crown should not cover these legal costs as the obligations both moral and otherwise have been honoured by the State, which should no longer carry the onus.
There may be a role for the Police Association in the future legal costs for the serving members and the former members who contributed financially to the TPAV, for many years. However, blanket coverage for all is perhaps not realistic or fair, but each case should be decided on its merits.
As for the rest of the Force, it will continue, better for the experience where sharper and more precise lines are drawn on certain activates. Members may end up with more protection and executive officers who are inclined to see themselves above the Law, will curb their activities and ensure their language and instructions do not require subordinates to act unlawfully.
For everybody else, this distasteful episode will fade with time and the honour and integrity will be rebuilt in the venerated Office of Constable, achieved by the actions of all serving members.
The Lawyer X artifices should never have happened and had the matters been addressed as Sir Ken Jones attempted, and Ron Iddles tried to impact, this whole episode would have been avoided.
If you want to blame somebody, you now know who.
by CAA | Sep 1, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
1st of September 2020
We at CAA have long been critical of inept and dishonest practices at command level of the Victoria Police. So it is with great pleasure that we commend new Chief Commissioner Shane Patton for telling his workforce the truth about the Lawyer X affair.
The conduct of some police during that protracted affair marked “profound failing” for “organisational and systemic” reasons, he told them. He thereby staked out a refreshingly new standard of leadership – one where the truth and the law are touchstones guiding members; not “spin” or denial of reality; not cover-up and distraction. Just truth and the law.
There is much to do before Mr. Patton can overcome years of toxic and dysfunctional culture, leading to those organisational and systemic failures – it is as though layers of corrosion need to be removed in order to Uphold the Right – but in this message Mr. Patton has demonstrated a willingness to start chipping away.
We continue to wish him well in that task.
by CAA | Sep 1, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
1st September 2020
The actions of our Premier would indicate it has. Some of the disturbing reactions and pronouncements in relation to the COVID Pandemic support this theory.
The Premier has repeatedly asserted that any plan to take us out of or reduce the restrictions currently in place cannot be considered until the number of infections is drastically reduced, nothing else can be done until the health problem is solved. That number is elusive and less tangible than vague. ut that appears to be his unswerving focus.
The mantra for this philosophy is repeated, ad nauseam, in his daily, long rambling media conferences which of themselves have become ritualistic in content and delivery. Being delivered seven days a week is forming part of his fixation.
The Premier’s apparent fixations also include his view that the need for a plan, is something he is too busy to consider until the COVID health crisis is under control.
It is apparent that the Premier cannot,’ walk and chew gum’ at the same time.
Our Premier is showing all the signs of Target Fixation.
Target fixation is an attentional phenomenon observed in humans in which an individual becomes so focused on an observed object (be it a target or hazard) that they inadvertently increase their risk of colliding with the object.
Usually associated with War, there are often examples in play on a far more regular basis than generally presumed.
Coincidently that phenomena may explain some of the indiscretions by Police Executives in the Layer X matters, who seem to have been obsessed with objectives blinded to the risk to them or the organization.
Unless some action is taken, our Premier will lead us into a financial and emotional collision. Ignoring the fiscal plight of Victoria and Victorians and the growing community unrest that is already showing signs of bubbling over into serious social disorder devaluing any good work he has done.
Very similar to the Police executives, who even after being warned their behaviour would end up in a Royal Commission, failed to modify their behaviour or fixations and the consequence of the Collison is now public record, and potentially some could end up in jail.
We should not have to wait until the only option to avoid the other impacts of the virus is social disorder, as this disease would thrive on that, and we would have a COVID wave three in a flash. That would feed the Premier’s fixation, justifying his bizarre behaviour
Surely there are members of the Government that are astute enough to recognize the seemingly unfortunate fixation of the Premier and have the intestinal fortitude to take action as unpleasant as that may be.
The risk of more serious harm to the Premier will be when the ‘collision ‘, occurs, and that may cause irreparable damage to him, and nobody would wish that on him. He needs help now.
by CAA | Aug 30, 2020 | Library, Uncategorized
