by CAA | Dec 19, 2023 | Library, Youth
The Herald Sun 19/12/23 again reports the burgeoning crime in this State, particularly serious youth crime.
They highlight the case of a 16-year-old boy implicated in 18 aggravated burglaries where cars were stolen in just over 5 weeks. The boy was charged with 48 offences in that time but was continually allowed to walk free by our legal system.
Other prolific offenders reported are,
- A 13-year-old boy was charged with eight aggravated burglaries and four car thefts in the four weeks.
- A 13-year-old boy was arrested four times and charged with four aggravated burglaries and five car thefts.
- A 12-year-old accused of six robberies and an assault.
- A 15-year-old charged with seven aggravated burglaries, five car thefts and a robbery.
Officers attached to Operation Trinity have made 2231 arrests since March, including 502 for aggravated burglaries and stealing vehicles.
The other 1729 arrests concerned what police described as “drug and other miscellaneous offences”.
And the loud response from those facilitating this outrageous behaviour is the same every time, ‘crickets’.
The Government and Opposition remain mute, the Courts and professionals in the youth field follow suit, and the only explanation falls to the Police.
The police are left with the glib line.
“Police say homeowners failing to take precautions to protect their property remained an issue.”
Obviously, designed to avoid criticising others, this line (we have heard often before) is disgraceful and explains why we are where we are, following closely on the experiences in Queensland and the NT.
As citizens, it is apparently our responsibility to address this issue, not the government officials we elect and pay with our taxes. Conveniently forgotten is that it is not us but the perpetrator who is committing the crime.
We wouldn’t need to lock things up so much if our government officials, law enforcement, and the justice system would address the root causes of crime and implement effective strategies to discourage young people from engaging in criminal behaviour. We need practical and evidence-based solutions, not just ideologically based theory that is destined to, and does continue to fail.
As it stands, the young offender experiences no significant incentives to stop committing crimes and are set free. Getting caught is no more than an inconvenience and part of the adrenaline rush. Having a Magistrate lecture them is the only penalty.
It is left to the Police to investigate, charge and take these offenders before the courts, securing convictions and then watch them walk out, thumbing their nose at the law only for them to repeat the same behaviour, ad infinitum.
A significant strategy working against reducing this problem is a foreboding bordering on paranoia by the responsible entities not to be blamed or admit to a failure.
Calls for a Royal Commission have been mumbled about, but that will not solve the problem as the track records of Royal Commissions are not that good at resolving problems. They are better equipped for fostering industries based on no empirical evidence, hoping, rather than determining, that the industries have the solution, and the exercise will take 3-5 years and cost us Millions for no appreciable return on that investment.
What is needed is leadership to implement accountabilities on entities to perform and achieve change by a no-blame approach, and the development of some basic pragmatic principles by which all entities adhere.
That will make some uncomfortable, but so be it; we want a result-based holistic approach that encompasses the Courts, the Police, Health, Corrections and Welfare Services, including NFPs, and organisations who work in this area.
We know that there are many who are ideologically opposed to concepts like personal accountability, but this type of ideology must not influence the solution to the problem because that is what has caused it.
The obsession with not sending young people to jail must stop. The ridiculous notion that jail will only make them worse begs the question, ‘worse than what’.
It is also incredible how certain sectors blame the Youth Detention centres as not fit for young people. We agree that they are not suitable for many young people, but they are suitable for securing violent juvenile thugs who pose a genuine and demonstrated risk to the community.
There is also the stupid notion that the Detention Centres themselves are the problem. An example is the Northern Territory, where a Royal Commission recommended the closure of the Don Dale Facility in Darwin. The physical building had little or no impact, it was the management regime of the place that failed dismally.
Like other Detention Centres the problem is not the building, it is the ineffective management of inmates, and we need to accept that some inmates are so incorrigible they need to be secured and restricted, not only for the good of the community, but, ironically, in the best interest of the convicted perpetrator and other inmates and staff.
The idiotically asinine belief permeating through our youth justice administration that perpetrators who continue to offend will be harmed by Detention is the first thing that must change because the reality is that avoiding saving them from themselves is irresponsible. How can they be so dumb?
The CCYP and Youth Justice have a lot to answer for as they are clearly asleep at the wheel or, more probably, are void of competent leadership that would have them both attentive and focused on these issues.
Their most notable output on these issues is ‘crickets’.
Immediate reform of the way recidivist juvenile offenders are treated in our criminal justice system, rather than excuses, is long overdue.
by CAA | Dec 15, 2023 | Illicit Drugs, Library
This article by American Holland Marshall is reproduced with permission and gives an insight into the future of the issues Victoria will face if the current Drug strategies are exploited and developed.
The question we pose is who is pushing and funding all these strategies?
The one sector that has the most to gain is the Drug industry, not the users. An industry that kills its customers by dramatically reducing their life expectancy so recruiting(normalisation of drugs) is paramount for their operations.-Editor
HARM REDUCTION IS LONG-TERM PALLIATIVE CARE FOR DRUG ADDICTS.
Harm reduction is based on reducing the likelihood that people will be seriously hurt or die when they do dangerous things. That is why we have laws that require drivers to obey speed limits, motorcyclists must wear helmets and construction workers must wear safety shoes.
Harm reduction doesn’t stop accidents; they make them less dangerous.
In health care, harm reduction started with programs to prevent sexually transmitted diseases by distributing condoms and lubricants. These services expanded with the arrival of the HIV/Aids epidemic and it then included the goal to reduce hepatitis C among heroin users.
Harm reduction industry goals
1.) Increase the number of drug supply facilities & supervised consumption sites.
2.) Make drug use accepted as a normal practice.
3.) Defund the police & have drug use considered solely a medical issue.
4.) Safe Supply. This is when addicts receive government-funded drugs.
Modern times
We now live in more radical times. Harm reduction advocates now focus on social justice and bodily autonomy. People have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, without coercion from anyone.
The harm reduction model doesn’t try to discourage addictions; it seeks to make drug use safer and more accepted.
Stigma
The message is addicts should not feel ashamed about using drugs. Drug addicts have been part of our society for centuries and they will continue to be with us.
Stigma must be eliminated. Drug addiction should be seen as just another craving like drinking coffee, eating chocolate or drinking alcohol. The drug addiction activists state that drug addicts are part of our society and they will continue to de so.
After all, Sherlock Holmes regularly smoked opium.
In a nutshell, this means addicts have the right to use drugs free of judgment or intervention.
Controlling the message
To help get their message across, the activists are constantly changing their language to hide what is actually happening to the addicts. The words:
• shooting galleries has been renamed Supervised Injection Sites.
• crack houses has been renamed Supervised Consumption Sites.
• addicts has been renamed People Who Use Drugs (PWUD)
• vagrants has been renamed homeless and then, persons without housing.
• shoplifting, muggings & thefts have been renamed survival crimes.
• squatting in parks or sidewalks has been renamed sheltering in place.
• police has been renamed strangers with guns.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Harm Reduction services
Health officials and the NGOs understand that powerful illegal drugs are killing addicts. In an attempt to prevent the transmission of blood borne and bacterial infections due to drug use, they give addicts:
• all the paraphernalia necessary to consume drugs.
• syringes for the addicts that inject drugs.
• crack pipes.
• smoking & snorting kits.
• condoms & lubricants for safer sex. (For love or for money)
• information on how to safely do drugs.
• snacks & bottles of water
• pet food
• information on what social services are available in the community.
• information on drug treatment facilities.
• Naloxone kits.
These sterile supplies do help reduce the transmission of blood borne and bacterial infections.
The drug supply centres do not want to upset the addicts, so they soft pedal advice on treatment centres and normally will discuss them only when asked.
Who are the experts?
Social justice warriors insist that drug addicts and ex-drug addicts are the experts that the politicians should be listening to for advice when they enact drug addiction policies and laws.
“People with lived and living experience in drug use are the experts that have proposed solutions to the drug poisoning crisis and have for decades.”
Harm Reduction costs
It is expensive for society to casually accept drug addictions as a new normal.
The taxpayers are paying for absolutely everything. Billions are spent on welfare and disability cheques, temporary shelters, hotel and motel rooms, all of the drug paraphernalia and the Narcon kits.
Transit services face increases in security and cleaning costs. The homeless don’t pay fares. Buses, street cars, subways and transit terminals are becoming mobile drug dens and homeless shelters. No wonder ridership is down.
Municipalities have to pay to clean up all the human waste and garbage that the addicts discard in the parks, alleyways and sidewalks. Police, fire services, ambulance services and emergency departments require large increases in their budgets.
Businesses have to pay for increased shoplifting losses, security guards, cameras, graffiti removal and protective fencing. Downtowns do not feel safe so the retail stores lose customers and some have had to close.
According to Statistics Canada, the homeless support sector saw a 60.7% increase in workers between 2016 and 2021. Guess who’s paying for that?
Harm reduction encourages drug use
Giving away free drug paraphernalia, supporting addicts living on the streets, demanding that drug use should be stigma free and even declaring that using drugs while partying is okay does nothing to stop people from experimenting with drugs.
‘Safer snorting kits’ handed out at British Columbia US high school after drug presentation
Students received kits containing information about “safer snorting” including a picture of a straw hovering above a line of white powder. Included in the kit were tubes for snorting and cards for making lines to snort.
The kit includes straws and wallet-sized cards for cutting powdered drugs into snortable lines — as well as a booklet on ‘staying safe when you’re snorting’including a pic
“Have condoms and lube with you. You may want to have sex while high,” reads one tip. Another advises the drug user to decorate their snorting equipment. “Adding a personal touch to your snorting equipment will help you better recognize your own when using with others,” it reads.
The booklet also notes the wide variety of drugs that can be consumed via snorting, from cocaine to crystal meth; fentanyl and ketamine.
Is this their mission Statement?
“I know it can be a little controversial, but one of the key tenets of harm reduction
that I see is that we want to be able to facilitate and champion autonomy of people
who use drugs.”
—Amber Tejada, Hepatitis Education Project
Addiction isn’t freedom, and “respecting people’s right” to die from it isn’t enlightened or compassionate. Harm Reduction should be named Harm Facilitation or Harm Prolongment. The people harm reduction supposedly saves keep using drugs and have a very short life expectancy.
Three years. Life expectancy of a feral cat.
Three years. Life expectancy of a person addicted to fentanyl.
Assisting someone with severe mental illness to use illicit drugs is nearly criminal negligence.
by CAA | Dec 13, 2023 | Family Violence, Library
A concise overview of critical issues, underpinning principles, and the evidence base for recommended actions.
The 2015 Royal Commission into Domestic Violence made 227 recommendations that cost the Victorian Government $2.7B to implement. This is now a multi-billion-dollar industry with a Minister for Family Violence, a Department of Family Violence, and a Multi-agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework.
The claims are to train 37,500 workers in Phase 1 (850 organisations) and 370,000 workers in Phase 2 (5,580 organisations).
The industry creates reports, resources and practice guides, grants, plans, research, statistical collection and analysis, guidelines, training, victim support groups, investigators, police, crisis assistance services, helplines, lawyers, security and the judicial system.
But they can’t arrange a response team to help Victims during a crisis.
Little in pragmatic and direct assistance for victims at the time of crisis and at the highest risk of being assaulted to protect them during these heightened risk periods or, in crime parlance, pro-active intervention.
This intervention is not to be confused with the Police role as that will remain in relation to direct physical threats and or actual physical violence. While there are no specific criminal laws against coercive control in Victoria, there are legal remedies victim-survivors can take. The Victorian Family Violence Protection Act includes coercive behaviour in its definition of family violence. That issue is a matter best dealt with by professionals other than the Police.
It is important to understand the size of the issue.
- One Woman is killed every week in Australia due to Family violence.
- Recorded Family Violence in Victoria is increasing, with Victoria Police reporting one incident every six minutes; 90,424 Recorded Incidents in Victoria in the 2021-2022 financial year.
- Police time applied to Family Violence and Domestic Violence administration severely impacts the ability of Police to respond to other community issues.
We also know that,
- Victim survivors report higher rates of violence from a perpetrator after separation. (Police are usually not directly involved at his stage, but the matter is in the hands of the Courts or the Domestic Violence Industry).
- Children are present in 30% of family violence incidents attended by police.
- NSW, Qld and Tas have “coercive control” legislation – Victoria still reviewing it!
- Tasmania has had ankle bracelets on perpetrators for many years – Victoria is still reviewing!
Eight years after the Royal Commission, what has been achieved?
- It has spawned the Family Violence bureaucratic Industry.
- Statistics, when released, remain consistent, with little progress on designing or empirically introducing reduction strategies.
- Critical risk victims are forced into hiding and wear a huge bracelet with a panic button.
- Perpetrators consistently remain at large on bail able to strike at will.
- Police are bogged down with bureaucratic risk assessments and bail/remand processes.
Family Safety Strategic Plan 2021-2024: https://www.vic.gov.au/family-safety-victoria-strategic-plan-2021-2024/print-all
CAA Key Policy Positions.
- Strengthen the focus to “offender accountability” while maintaining “victim support”.
- Remove administrative functions from Operational Police and the function of Government Welfare services.
- Urgent Legislation
- Ankle monitors and vehicle tracking monitors (if perpetrators are released on bail).
- Specific coercive control legislation.
- Tightening of bail laws.
- Domestic violence disclosure scheme (Clare’s Law – UK 2009 -perpetrator priors available to victims on request.
CAA Observations and Recommendations
The net outcome of the Royal Commission and the Government’s responses is the creation of a Domestic Violence industry with a plethora of Quango’s and Convocations costing billions of dollars but with little or no positive impact on the people it was intended to benefit.
If there is something déjà vu about this issue, it’s not surprising. Similarities or a parallel to the issues around our first peoples come to mind.
Spending huge amounts of money with no appreciable improvements for the victims.
The CAA strongly recommends an independent inquiry into the application of resources, accountabilities and effectiveness of outcomes at the coal face.
It is long past time for positive action.
by CAA | Dec 12, 2023 | Corruption, Library, Politics
The broad spectrum of bias in Government concerns us greatly as it is one of the key drivers of corruption.
Bias is not a singular phenomenon but multi-faceted; there is
- Biase – Straight-out overt behaviour that erodes good governance.
- Unconscious bias – Implanted in those susceptible to be used by those who peddle bias – the manipulators.
- Confected bias – Created falsely to fit in or be accepted by others or to achieve a personal advantage – the career ladder climber.
- Manufactured Bias– A process where an entity or person creates an environment influencing others to follow a bias that suits their purpose for power or control –
Among these traits, the Manufactured Bias is the most insidious and destructive.
For an apolitical organisation, we would not normally make comments that could be construed as partisan; however, the ex-Premier Daniel Andrews has entered the debate with a strange and somewhat ludicrously twisted set of hypotheses that really do ‘take the cake’.
We, as many Victorians, have been trying to encapsulate just what makes the ex-Premier tick and now we know, not from a media OPED but from the ex-Premier himself.
He has now exposed all in his most recent interview. Although much of what he said was no surprise, it confirmed what many of us suspected.
The ex-Premier has been the architect of Manufactured Bias, and this attempt at rationalising his behaviour is absurd.
This theory, which we have called Manufactured Bias, is something that the ex-Premier will be best remembered for.
The term that we coined was after reading the ex-Premiers version of his style of leadership as reported in the HS 9th December 2023.
What is concerning and explains a lot of where we are as a State is how Andrews sees Victorians; we are either “haters and the rest vote Labor” he said.
Or conversely, if you don’t vote Labor, you are a hater.
The irony of that statement is many of the victims of his style have been Labor voters, and no concession was ever offered to those voters. This includes shutting down the party rank and file branches, giving him free rein.
The convention that elected political leaders work for all Victorians under his premiership was a myth as we all suspected, now exposed in the context of a brag.
He clearly identified any criticism of him in not-too-glowing terms, indicating his flawed dictatorial management style and giant ego, he couldn’t countenance he could be wrong.
The flaw of his style can now be clearly identified from his own words and is best described as Manufactured bias. This is the method he used to operate with impunity outside convention and perhaps even outside the law.
To manufacture something, there needs several components, amongst them: an idea, a design, a key driver, resources to facilitate the manufacture (a budget) and a marketing plan. The sustainability of the manufactured item, or philosophy, hinges largely on how effective the ‘key driver’ is at convincing the market that the manufactured item is a necessity, irrespective of any consequences.
Of the two major components, the fiscal management plan is the primary one, and clearly, there just wasn’t one. Pillaging the State coffers and then incurring huge debts in the name of the State will adversely impact generations for many years and cannot be interpreted as getting ’shit done’.
We suspect that there is debt both on and off the books and when fully audited, will be explosive.
Anybody can do extraordinary things without the constraints of fiscal responsibility.
By any measure, regardless of what and how grandly something is manufactured, fiscal irresponsibility is a project failure.
The other serious failure exposed was Andrews’ attitude to the legal system.
His claims about the role of some who he accuses of trying to usurp the authority of elected representatives is the foundation of how ‘Manufactured Bias’ is nurtured and manifests.
Obviously aimed at the former head of IBAC and the Ombudsman who dared to be critical of him.
The ex-Premier’s lack of knowledge of the legal system is breathtaking. These officers are not usurping the authority of the Premier or the Parliament or anything of that nature because both are acting within the legislation that the government designed and created.
That is how a democratic system works, and their independence is critical to reining in unlawful actions, either procedural or criminal; critical to the checks and balances.
If there is a problem perceived with their function, change the legislation; it is contemptuous to try to just usurp their authority.
The Premier’s twisted logic on this issue might explain why his behaviour, ‘I can’t remember’ when examined, was a contagion affecting most of the ex-Premiers acolytes also subject to examination.
The ex-Premier was the one usurping the Parliament’s authority and, with his admissions, may be in contempt of the Parliament.
Referring to Public Servants, again arguably aimed at IBAC and the Ombudsman, he said,
“They have opinions and views, and they’re more than entitled to those. But see, what they’re not entitled to … (and that’s) to pretend that anyone voted for them. Not entitled to pretend that they’ve somehow got a mandate that is equal to, let alone superior, to the duly elected government.”
It is true they do not have a mandate from the people, but they have something much more significant: an act of Parliament bestowing specific powers and independence, something that the ex-Premier did not and could not control.
From this statement, the ex-Premier also accuses the work of the law officers of pretending to be ‘superior’. The ex-Premier saw the elected Government, led by him, as ‘superior’, implying above the Law. This may go a long way in explaining the attitude and memory losses the ex-Premier experienced when appearing before inquiries or being investigated.
That behaviour did cause very negative leadership of those within the Government who felt that they could take comfort that memory loss would protect them. A ‘protection racket’ led from the top by example. The concept of accountability was dismissed as irrelevant.
It is that contempt and, arguably, arrogance directed at the two Authorities that have emboldened many others within the government to flaunt the law in the belief that they were untouchable. ‘Manufactured bias’ manifested.
And to boast Mr Andrews said,
“ he’d rather be remembered for being forceful, making tough, necessary decisions and “getting shit done” than for achieving little during his term.”
It is this statement that resonates and will probably define his legacy.
Anybody can “get shit done” if you do not have to be accountable and have access to unlimited funds.
Andrews omitted to claim his most significant achievement, saddling all Victorians with a debt that will take many generations to repay, a yoke for our children’s children and more. Accompanied by no plan on how the debt may be serviced let alone acquitted.
What makes this even worse is that on that measure alone, fiscal irresponsibility, bordering on radical indifference, he will not be remembered fondly or respectfully.
Viewed collectively, the reality of ‘Manufactured Bias’ and the growth of this concept has been allowed and fertilised by Andrews’ leadership style in Victoria and is best described by a CAA-supporter comment on the CAA website at https://caainc.org.au/ explaining how it works in Victoria Police, there is no doubt a similar approach is applied Government-wide.
“Because they are subjected to the ideology daily in memos, lectures, training courses and private conversations, they know that if you want a promotion, don’t upset those at the top. It’s the softest corruption there is, and it’s obvious to anyone who looks but is very difficult to root out.”- OMG.
‘Manufactured Bias’.
by CAA | Dec 8, 2023 | Corruption, Library, Politics
The Victorian Ombudsman, Ms Debora Glass, has produced a ‘damming assessment’ of the politicisation of the Victorian Government; however, the report fell short of recommending any prosecutions, and it didn’t even make recommendations for the need for further investigation.
The reasons for this, and a number of other issues investigated by the Ombudsman over a number of years, indicate a pattern of ‘falling short’ as the norm.
We would argue that the problem is far more insidious than the Ombudsman has determined, while her investigations into various decisions, although relevant, mask the real need for detailed examinations of the functions of the alleged nepotistic appointees by the Government.
The Ombudsman’s investigation was flawed and failed to properly investigate unconscious bias exercised by Senior Government appointees.
As well as looking into the matters covered and identified in her report, the issue of bias in appointments can be accurately determined by patterns of historical management behaviour.
“Politicisation is far more nuanced, complex and potentially pervasive than simply the practice of hiring your political mates.”- Ombudsman.
One example that demonstrates an unconscious bias is the management and function of Victoria Police in the operational strategies employed in matters of civil unrest and demonstrations.
It is highly unlikely that the Operational Commanders at these demonstrations were the same officer, so how is it that the strategies are only ever consistent with the government’s ideology?
There have been a number of demonstrations where the Police response has varied to a degree to indicate that either actual or unconscious bias is at play. Consistency in Policing demonstrations is sadly lacking, we argue, because of the bias.
In particular, the lack of police action at the Black Lives Matter rally, the overreaction to anti-COVID demonstrations, the lack of any action at the Anti-Trans Rally and, of late, the Pro-Palestinian/HAMAS civil unrest all have a common denominator: the action of Police can be seen to mirror the ideology of the Government on the purpose of the demonstration, and that is a very bad thing.
“But nothing will change without a recognition at the highest levels of government that change is necessary.”
It corrodes standards of public governance, decision-making in the public interest and trust in government, and if left unchecked increases the risk of corrupt criminal offending.” -Ombudsman.
On that point, the protestations of the Ombudsman fail.
The highest levels of Government do not see an issue because, to them, the status quo is appropriate and a right, part of the spoils of Governing.
It is abundantly clear that the checks and balances that should prevent this problem either do not exist or are not enforced.
Simply raising the issue has little chance of achieving a satisfactory result. It is imperative that the inquiry continue to examine where the checks and balances have failed and what remedial action is necessary.
Starting with a search for answers measuring executive managers’ accountability and performance against the position’s benchmarks.
The infection of bias is near epidemic proportions, and it can be averted tomorrow simply by holding executive managers to account, starting with the most senior ones. It would only take a handful of Senior executives to lose their position because bias was identified in their sphere of control, and very quickly, bias would be diminished dramatically if not eliminated.
Unless this Government acknowledges that there is a problem, nothing will change. Positive action is required.
No public servant should receive a bonus if they have not exceeded their accountability and performance levels.
For a cultural change, as that is what is required, it is necessary that failure to perform free from bias must be managed by the greatest motivator, their hip pocket.
by CAA | Dec 3, 2023 | Library, Media, Politics, Victoria Police Issues
The breaking down of law and order in Victoria has been evident for some time, but recently, this concept has accelerated to a very worrying level.
The past is only relevant to identify patterns; the future is the worry, as it seems nothing is being done to arrest the decline.
Currently, the situation where demonstrators, seemingly with impunity, do whatever they can to intimidate another sector of the community, instilling gross fear on any part of the community, is unacceptable on so many levels.
Worryingly, is that the intimidation is so vitriolic it is only a ‘hair’s breadth’ away from violence.
The seriousness of the situation cannot be downplayed, and yet the Police, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, seem ineffective through bias.
This is not the Australian way.
The bias by Policing has been developing for some time, and we suggest it has a lot to do with the failure of the principle of the ‘Separation of Powers’[i], a long-held presumption that has been eroded, and the management of public order is where it most obviously manifests.
The failure of this principle, where the decisions and responses to public order are tainted by Political bias, is a two-way street.
The blatant direct involvement of politics in decision-making has become far less obvious, but we are sure it still occurs; what has evolved is a far more insidious, unconscious bias. A will to please political masters or those who support the government without direct interaction.
The Police have no role in allowing partisan views to influence responses but must respond on the basis of maintaining law and order, and that includes protecting vulnerable groups and all citizens; the issues and reasons for disquiet must never influence the operational response.
Some of the disquiet in police ranks that has provoked industrial action recently has been attributed to the Forces’ obvious bias.
This move toward partisanship with the government of the day has been an attempt by Governments to own police powers and have a far greater say in the operations of Policing, a repugnant concept that might seem fine in theory, but, as we have seen, makes Policing ineffective.
The current demonstrations against Israel by pro-Palestinian groups supporting Hamas are a case in point.
The basis of the demonstrations is those allegedly opposed to Israel’s response to the attacks, hostage-taking and murders committed by Hamas. The role of Victoria Police must not be influenced by the reasons for the demonstration but by providing a Police response to maintain Law and order and should be as concerned with protecting the abused Jews as they should be for those who identify as Pro-Palestinian.
The accusation of police bias is a ‘hot button’ issue sure to raise the ire of Police executives. Be that as it may, the matter is immensely serious, and the issue of the breakdown of the ‘Separation of Powers’ and biase must be corrected.
To ignore the issue will be a blight on the capacity of Police Senior management as this issue lies at their feet.
The following list of incidents indicates beyond doubt that bias is at play and must be addressed.
- Black Lives Matter – passive police response acting as spectators.
- COVID-19 – aggressive police response including use of firearms on demonstrators – aggressive role extending over numerous occasions for two years, including chasing and dispersing demonstrators using defensive weapons like pepper spray as an attack weapon. Tea bagging protestors to make them breach the COVID rules.
- Sundry environmental demonstrations – passive police role acting as spectators.
- Pro-Palestine (Hamas) demonstrations -passive police response acting as spectators.
We do not support unnecessarily aggressive responses but demand the Police apply the law without fear or favour, malice or ill will, absolutely, irrespective of the issue at hand.
Following this principle will rapidly improve and rebuild the image and confidence that the community had in its Police, and the police members will be able to return to the non-partisan positions they once were able to hold in their professional capacity, improving the morale within the organisation so that the workplace again becomes non-partisan.
We acknowledge, however, that the government has a lot to answer for by diluting the Police power to manage these issues by repealing the ‘move on’ Laws.
It has seriously diminished police authority to perform their task.
By removing those powers, the closest analogy is a law to remove the ability of doctors to carry a stethoscope when working in Emergency Rooms (ER).
The Victoria Police can and must do better operationally, free from Government pressure and interference.
[i] In Australia, the power to make and manage laws is shared between the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. The separation of powers avoids any person or group having all the power. https://peo.gov.au/
by CAA | Nov 26, 2023 | Library, Victoria Police Issues
The State of Victoria is in a terrible mess and is deteriorating before our eyes; not a day goes by without more bad news.
We have a rapidly climbing crime rate in the worst categories.
- A Road Toll is off the Richter scale,
- Domestic Violence is out of control,
- Youth crime is at levels never seen before,
- The burgeoning drug problem ruining lives on an unprecedented scale,
- Rampant Cybercrime,
- Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMG) and Organised Crime gang strategies failing, all operating with a degree of impunity,
- A broken legal system, taking years to resolve straightforward cases and with little or no empathy for victims,
- A biased legal system with serious crimes going unprosecuted based on who the perpetrator is rather than impartiality applied,
- If you need Police in a hurry, any chance of a response is problematic.
A crisis seems an understatement.
Additionally, the mooted Police industrial action currently confronting the community aggravates the overall perception that this State has an ineffective Police Force, which feeds into accelerating the further decline of the issue being confronted by us all.
The government must do what it takes to resolve this industrial matter quickly.
We do not criticise the Police members, and although we oppose the Police industrial action on principle, there are compelling issues that have caused this current industrial dispute.
Amongst the issues,
- High levels of staff turnover,
- Poor recruiting outcomes,
- The Force being overmanaged – top heavy at the expense of the front line,
- Unrelenting repetition of certain policing demands without solutions,
- Police members over-committed to non-core functions, reducing their ability to perform the task of policing,
- Understaffing of frontline policing,
- Staff burnout,
- Lack of support from the Courts and the Government,
- Unnecessary tasks sapping resources,
- The breakdown of the ‘Separation of Powers’ politicising Policing.
We should also include management capabilities as that is no doubt a contributor.
We do acknowledge there are pressures on police management due to outside factors. It is hard in an operational sense for management to service all competing demands with insufficient staff who have generally become less motivated by the nature of the irrelevant tasks they are required to perform.
Police are continually attending domestic conflicts at an alarming rate, sapping the majority of Police resources, and whilst there was a Royal Commission into the problem costing many millions, the outcome has not achieved any reduction in the levels of violence or frequency of police demands to attend domestic disputes but rather the issue has exponentially exploded in demands on Police resources.
Causing substantial negativity among Police members, their plight is generally ignored, with more demands on their time with fewer police to do the policing and no appreciable effort to arrest the decline.
These problems did not manifest overnight but are a consequence of factors that should have been dealt with a long time ago.
The issue is complex, but the reality is that the rising crime rates are the consequence of sustained inaction by the state and, in particular, the denigration of effective Proactive Policing that has all but disappeared. Although portrayed as functional, the police proactive strategies have failed to play a fundamental or effective role in policing.
Failure to stop crime before it happens has fed substantially into the current community malaise.
The issue is plain and simple: we are becoming a more lawless society, not a more tolerant one, as pundits try to portray.
An ideological bent towards a more progressive ideal is actually a misnomer. Generally, progressive philosophies create regression, and we all suffer, particularly the most vulnerable in society.
Examples that stand out,
- Medically Supervised (Safe injecting room) Injecting room,
- Decriminalising public drunkenness,
- The Koori parallel judicial system,
- Abuse of the ‘Separation of Powers’ convention,
- Weakening of various criminal statutes,
- The failure to modernise the archaic legal system that is now unfit for purpose.
There is a void in leadership in this State, across a broad spectrum of management, fed by an insatiable appetite to never accept blame for failure. A sentiment throughout Government and also now appearing in the corporate sector.
This all leads to a lack of accountability, the nemesis this State faces.
If you have had enough like us, sign our petition demanding these issues be urgently addressed. https://www.change.org/p/when-is-enough-is-really-enough
Enough signatures and we can demand change.
by CAA | Nov 19, 2023 | Library, Youth
Youth crime is the victim of ideology that is so blinkered as to fail to achieve its original goal.
In the late 1990’s to 2012 a formidable politician, Robert Hulls, championed a concept called Restorative Justice.
A concept, ironically given its devout following in Victoria’s Judicial fraternity, that has not exactly achieved worldwide acclaim or even acclaim to any great degree Nationally.
For all its warm-fuzzy ideological appeal, the concept remains just a theory, and we are paying the penalty of having our Justice system hijacked by a theory that, in practice, has failed, hence the lack of acclaim.
Look no further than the juvenile crime statistics over the last two decades to see the abject failure. This era was preceded by a Victoria Police Policy of proactive policing targeting young people and building bridges. A policy that worked.
The definition of Restorative Justice published by RMIT, is clearly an ideological joke gone disastrously wrong, and sane people should never have allowed it to permeate the justice system as it currently has.
Restorative justice is a theory of justice that focuses on the harm caused by crime and wrongdoing to people, relationships and communities.
It provides a framework for addressing and preventing harm that moves beyond punishment towards healing. As a practice, restorative justice processes most commonly bring together people affected by harm in a safe, structured and facilitated way, to talk about what happened, how they were impacted and how the harm can be repaired or addressed.
https://cij.org.au/opencircle/what-is-restorative-justice
It is a fat lot of good having victims, sometimes of horrendous crimes, being confronted in a congenial environment with the perpetrator for ‘a healing’; ‘a healing for who’?
Healing the perpetrator does nothing for the poor Victim who not only has to suffer the consequences of the crime but is then called up for ‘a healing’, not for them, but for the perpetrator.
That this process would somehow reduce the likelihood of the perpetrator reoffending is an academic fantasy.
One major failing is this theoretical concept has been interpreted by the judiciary and others as a process to assist perpetrators and perhaps turn their lives around. The operative word is, perhaps, because, to those who know and understand the psyche of the young, it is highly unlikely to achieve the desired outcome.
Juvenile offenders know only one concept, and that is their personal advantage as they see it, and the impact on anybody else is immaterial.
When juveniles from a particular cohort are charged and convicted by a court, the perpetrator perceives only two options. If they walk from the court, they have beaten the charge, or they can be sent to prison, a badge of honour to be bragged about.
Lawyers and the Judiciary might as well save the energy from dissertations directed at a convicted juvenile perpetrator as they explain how wrong the actions are and that a diversion will be their ‘last chance’. Rhetoric without consequences, they have no doubt heard many times, making the threat useless.
So, no matter what might be said or recorded or otherwise by the Court, if the perpetrator walks from Court, their bragging rights herald, ‘I won’, and will be broadcast loudly amongst their peers. That has a knock-on effect of impunity from any consequences, emboldening others to commit crimes.
The Court’s focus on the individual perpetrator is important, but the Court has an obligation to the broader community, particularly other young people likely to offend.
That leaves us with a system that rewards, not punishes criminality, in the perpetrator’s mind’. Any deterrent effect is disastrously lost on any peers of the perpetrator as they can demonstrate that no matter what they do, nothing happens.
If reparation was enforced on the juveniles and or their family, it would at least be a tangible deterrent.
The best option to reduce juvenile crime is to prevent it by reintroducing proactive programs like,
- Blue Light Discos (Blue Light survives, but the discos have all but disappeared).
- The Police in Schools Program, which ran very successfully in Victoria from 1969 until 2006. (The current iteration is similar in name only; the very effective Curriculum-based version is no longer used.)
- Operation New Start was a program actively ensuring young people actually get to school.
- Derby Hill – a Blue Light resource used as a school camp. Local Police could spend time with their local children in a school camp orientated to Policing. The camp has been disposed of.
Early structured connection of police with juveniles pays high dividends in reducing offending. All of these programs had one remarkable similarity. When each was introduced, there was an immediate reduction in local juvenile crime.
Another option to reduce the frequency and severity of juvenile crime is incarceration, particularly for repeat offenders—understandable consequences for society and the juvenile.
Unfortunately, there is only one option to reduce the frequency and severity of juvenile crime, and that is incarceration—understandable consequences, not for society but for the juvenile.
Jail is not the place for young people; neither is it appropriate or in their best interest for them to rape, rob and pillage society.
Shorter sentences will be the answer because time for young people moves extremely slowly, so a month or two with a generous good behaviour incentive would be more effective than any extended period to avoid the risk of institutionalisation and create a break in the nexus the juvenile has with their current peers.
Jail per se is not the problem; it is how this resource is used. Threats alone will never succeed, and the resource needs to be used more creatively and effectively.
After a relatively short period, the perpetrator’s peers will move on without the juvenile, a good outcome that gives the juvenile the chance to start again.
While jail should not be a holiday home, the discipline and proper management of juveniles will help them.
If the problem is perceived to be the jail, then fix the jail.
It’s their liberty that has to be sacrificed. A month without access to a mobile phone would be a great start on the road to a crime-free life.
In serious cases, it is the juvenile offender’s liberty that must be sacrificed to protect the Juvenile and the Victims.
The reduction starts with creative and effective pro-active programs to reduce crime in the first place and then pragmatic and effective management of perpetrators to guide them from their current path.
This will ultimately save lives, predominantly of the perpetrators. Crime can be a fatal endeavour.
by CAA | Nov 18, 2023 | Library, Victoria Police Issues
The debate and allegations of police bias in the management of demonstrations have again been raised.
Bias concerns have indeed been more frequent and strident over recent years, and central to the community angst is the reported different responses to different causes.
The unavoidable comparisons of the police response are drawn between pre-COVID, Black Lives Matter (BLM), COVID Demonstrations, Pro Woman’s Rights and more recently, pro-Palestinian/Hamas demonstrations.
Police acting as spectators to the BLM demonstration, as opposed to Rubber Bullets and O/C Spray against COVID Demonstrators, a scenario VicPol will not be able to move away from for many years, if ever.
Hence, the CAA’s position on water cannons which are at least consistent.
Now, the issue relates to the police response to the pro-Palestine/Hamas anti-Jewish demonstrations.
The first principle of Policing demonstrations is consistency so that an allegation of bias cannot be levelled at the police; irrespective of the cause, people are exercising their right to assembly and free speech.
It is understandable that many in the community have doubts and feel Victoria police show bias, influenced by the subject matter of the demonstrations.
These latest demonstrations could become more problematic and facilitate anarchy by extremists hijacking the demonstrator’s actions from either side of the debate. A lack of Police action toward demonstrators who are breaking the law is a major cause of violence escalating because the behaviour is unchecked.
What has occurred seems to be inconsistency in applying the law as it stands. This inconsistency implies that the police policy moves with the subject matter of the demonstration, hence the allegations of bias.
It was widely reported that a Senior Police spokesperson said, “Protesters could not be stopped from unfurling hateful banners and performing anti-Semitic rallying cries”.
But there are specific laws to deal with these matters.
In Victoria, it is against the law to vilify a person or group of people in public because of their race or religion. Vilification is behaviour that ‘incites or encourages hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule’ for a person or group of people because of their race and/or religion.
It is also against the law to behave in public in a way that is racially offensive or abusive to a person or group of people because of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin
. https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/racial-vilification-and-acts-racial-hatred.
It is, therefore, not a question as to whether the perpetrators, and there were many exposed by news services, have committed Vilification in breach of the Law, it is only their individual guilt or innocence that is the question, necessarily determined by a Court, not the bias of individuals within VicPol.
That the crime has been committed is beyond doubt.
Another statement attributed in the media to the Senior Officer was,
“Police are aware of recent chants and banners at these rallies, and while they might be offensive to ‘some’, unfortunately, they do not always constitute a criminal offence.”
So, the police pick and choose the ‘some’.
That is bias and not police exercising discretion, which individual Police have the power to do.
The further claim that “Police can only act within the confines of the law” is a truism. However, it implies that the actions we see are within the confines of the law – a highly debatable proposition because, equally, the police have an obligation to enforce the law. There are a number of potential offences that the Police can take action against for those breaching them, which in part supports the politician’s views that police have adequate powers.
Offences regularly committed by demonstrators that are not prosecuted,
Obstruction, Trespass, Unlawful assembly, Anti-mask laws, Offensive behaviour, Besetting, Offences against emergency workers, Violent disorder, Affray or property damage.
https://fls.org.au/law-handbook/rights-activism-and-fair-treatment-at-work/community-activism/common-charges-associated-with-protests/
We accept that at times, for operational expediency, some minor offences should be overlooked (exercising police discretion); however, when demonstrations occur without any arrests and blatant offences are being committed, beamed into our living rooms on the nightly news, the authority of the State and the Police is undermined as is the confidence of the community, something from a policing perspective that is essential for the overall effective policing function.
That some perpetrators are prosecuted post-event is not a disincentive for participants where an arrest during the demonstration is. The lack of arrests can promote an attitude that police are weak and ineffectual, the deterrent effect is lost, and more social unrest is guaranteed.
While weasel words to attempt to justify police inaction and or bias may placate a minority, the vast majority of the community sees through the spin.
Fair, impartial and effective policing without fear or favour is an underlying foundation principle of policing.
by CAA | Nov 17, 2023 | Corruption, Library, Victoria Police Issues
16th November 2023
The Victoria Police ‘Prior History Guidelines’ published on their recruiting website https://www.police.vic.gov.au/police-entry-requirements raises considerable doubts about the integrity of the Police in this State.
The guidelines are an exhaustive list of offences that a person can be convicted of and still be recruited. This list will shock many.
Albeit that there are exclusion periods attached to each conviction. It is wrong on so many counts.
Not the least the lack of empathy extended to victims who may be confronted with their perpetrator in Police uniform.
Five or ten years may seem like a long time, but to the victims, their pain can be an eternity.
Simply having an arbitrary exclusion period does not mean that the applicant does not still hold a biased disposition to the values they held when committing the crime.
At best, it only determines that during the exclusion period, they have not been caught, not that they didn’t continue to offend.
The application of this policy, which has been in place prior to the appointment of the current Chief Commissioner, may go some way to explaining the difficulty in securing and retaining staff and the lack of confidence that has evolved in policing generally.
Police were once looked up to as pillars of society; this policy trashes that notion.
It allows people with pre-dispositions, attitudes and values not consistent with the high integrity expected by police to negatively influence the culture of the organisation.
Amongst a raft of offences, it is possible that the police member attending to investigate your issue has been previously convicted of that same offence and could have served jail time for that indiscretion.
Irrespective of time elapsed, that police member will have a disposition that may be counterproductive to good policing and affect their judgement. It would definitely not instil confidence in victims that this possibility exists.
Not too many people would be pleased that a convicted felon is the police member dealing with their issue. The principle of ‘set a thief to catch a thief’, is a principle that is unacceptable by any measure in policing.
An example of offences that applicants to VicPol can be convicted of and still be approved to join the police Force,
‘Theft, deception, criminal damage, serious assault, or other serious offences.
Dishonesty, assault, property damage or any offence against an emergency services worker, trafficking, possession or using illicit or illegal drugs.
Driving in a manner or speed dangerous, DUI, drug-impaired driving including refusing to undergo an assessment or refusing to comply with the requirements of testing,’
Surprisingly, the list also includes Insolvency with a five-year exclusion period. This shows scant knowledge of the realities of business. We have just come through and are still feeling the effects in the corporate sector of the COVID pandemic and now fiscal headwinds with Government policy responsible for many insolvencies, not poor character by directors.
Many businesses face insolvency through no fault of the Directors.
This policy is counterintuitive, discouraging these people, who are generally highly skilled people of very good character, from the Police Force.
Probably the most inane offence is the inclusion of ‘any offence against an emergency services worker.’ What sort of ‘numb nut’ would include the possibility of approving an application of somebody who has been convicted of belting a Police or emergency services worker?
It may be that this list is moot because it will conflict with the new legislation for Spent convictions. A person whose criminal offending has been ‘Spent’ will not be required to disclose the prior conviction in the first place. Unless Victoria police have secured an exemption, it will mean that they will not have to disclose spent prior convictions irrespective of Police policy, which says they must.
The number of people who are accepted into the Force with prior convictions for any crime, let alone serious offences, is irrelevant.
That they can be accepted is the issue that undermines the integrity of all Police and the Force generally, community confidence and the culture of Victoria police.
It is incumbent on the Chief Commissioner to rescind this Policy and require the Government to provide an exception to police on the issue of Spent Convictions.
Integrity is the cornerstone of effective policing, if not it should be.
