The Chief Commissioner launched a force-wide review in late October ’24 to consider redundancies of hundreds of non-critical roles and the potential amalgamation of command divisions.
This review, motivated by the necessity to reign in the cost of Policing this State, is welcome news for not only that reason but also to reduce the burdening excesses of a bloated command and senior ranks and the proliferation of non-critical activities that have evolved, drawing police from their primary function of maintaining law and order.
The CAA has long argued that the structure of the executive branch of Victoria Police was not serving the organisation well.
Starting over a decade ago, the removal of two senior ranks below the Command level and the explosion of executive positions took off and became the norm.
The ranks of Commander, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have had their span of control and functions seriously depleted by the vast growth in their numbers, with each new appointment carving out relevance. That relevance comes with support staff and resources, and they are drawn down at the expense of frontline policing.
Each of these positions costs the State and the police budget millions of dollars in recurring expenditure for no greater outcomes from the organisation as the crime rate attests.
The inefficiency of this approach is evident in the decision-making process within the organisation.
As part of the ‘relevance carving’ of these executives, the decision-making within the organisation is drawn up to fill the allotted purpose of the new positions.
That adds to inefficiency in the command-and-control process. Decisions originally made at a lower level, much closer to where the impact is felt, are being drawn up to make some of these appointments relevant or given purpose.
Not only is this inefficiency writ large, but it also has a deleterious impact on those at the coal face trying to make policing work, only to find that they have to spend much of their time working out who the issue should be addressed when they used to be able to resolve it at their level.
This whole process has a very ‘Weeties packet’ feel about it, where the appointments over this period are akin to drawing the lucky coupon from the Weeties packet rather than demonstrating management and leadership capability.
Many may argue that the Police should not have their budgets impacted because of the adverse impact that will have on the community; however, if conducted with vigour and integrity, this review will attain a long overdue clean-out, achieving greater efficiency and building overall force morale, and in turn, improve operational performance.
There is, however, a significant problem that will be very challenging for the reviewers: the willingness of many police to give up their 9-5 positions, which attracts all the financial benefits available to police on the front line without the inconvenience of shift work or the inherent dangers of front-line policing.
In an address some time ago, the Chief Commissioner highlighted that most new Police Recruits lasted about four years on the street before seeking a non-operational position.
This phenomenon is very alarming and, in essence, puts the vast majority of police on the street who are relevantly in-experienced, where the most experienced must be there to service the public and nurture the newbies for policing effectiveness.
After just four years, a Police member who is dedicated and works hard may, with some luck, have completed a third of the journey to being an influential police member.
Four years of service is barely out of apprenticeship compared to many other trades and professions. This period should be designated post-probation, with some restrictions not applied to police who have served longer.
Part of this review must look at this issue and restructure the system. Members of less than six years’ service should only be relocated from their initial appointed position at the discretion of the Chief Commissioner.
Essential to maintain and improve service delivery, the development of a Police Reserve can be a cost-effective way of improving Police productivity while improving the Police culture, which, for several reasons, has been in decline for some considerable time.
The CAA will shortly publish a paper describing what a Police Reserve might look like.
Ideally the review by the CCP will focus firstly and intensively on VicPol purpose and objectives – and possibly identify what is not a policing function. That starting point should lead to the design of a purposeful organisation structure and define roles and responsibilities – as well as eliminate “dead wood” appointments. Position titles, as defined by rank, are increasingly irrelevant, and even misleading. It would be a mistake to take purpose and objectives as being adequately understood and jump ahead to assume that redundancies are appropriate. It would be a mistake to initially aim to tweak the hierarchy so as to achieve a reduced cost of staff. Similarly, if worthwhile efficiencies are required [not simply “rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic”], it would be a mistake to just yet introduce/reintroduce Reservists to solve an ill-defined, culture-driven, changing problem. A Review of the magnitude required would likely be delivered best by an external expert – keeping in mind that a consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time.
This review initiated by the CCP is very welcome, well overdue, and it was inevitable.
Let’s hope the review is supported by those people who may be affected, for the sake of the Force.
Hopefully the first to go is the leech and head of legal Services. His integral already been drawn into question by the Royal Commission (Lawyer X) and his clear attempts to obfuscate supply of information.