What does this phrase really mean?

The phrase “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” was popularised by the Australian Army Chief, Lieutenant General David Morrison, in 2013. He used it to emphasise that ignoring misconduct or poor behaviour—especially disrespect, bullying, or unethical actions—makes those behaviours seem normal.

At its core, the message is about responsibility, accountability and culture:

• • • If you see something wrong and stay silent, you’re helping it continue.
    • If you ignore low standards, you lower the standard for everyone.
    • If you want a better culture—at work, in society, or at home—you must act when something isn’t right.

This applies to leadership, workplaces, communities, and even personal life.

 When leaders or individuals overlook problems, they signal that those problems are acceptable, which can erode trust and create toxic environments. – various sources.

 The principles of the phrase can be applied to unacceptable behaviours recently demonstrated at the Box Hill Police Station (One of those not closed, at least at the time of this incident).

A senior member of the CAA had a private cause to visit this Station recently and noticed that three other mature male persons were also waiting for service at the counter.

A Constable was attending to two additional females.

The conversation between the Constable and these women was clearly audible to the gathering, bordering on theatre. It soon became obvious that one of the women, who was showing signs of distress, was reporting a domestic violence matter, and the second woman was her support person.

So far, the situation, although not entirely desirable, was acceptable; however, it went downhill from there.

The Constable delved into the issue in great detail with a series of questions that were both very personal and embarrassing to answer, aggravated by the audience present.

Any respect for the privacy of this alleged victim evaporated.

It was obvious to the CAA member that he was not the only one feeling discomfort at the way this probable victim was being exposed for all to hear. He observed the body language from the other males waiting for service, who also seemed very uncomfortable with the process the female was subjected to.

Even when another female member attended the counter to help those waiting and the CAA member raised the situation with her, she agreed the behaviour was unacceptable and would take it further; however, she did not intervene as the interrogation of the victim continued.

The circumstances and content of the domestic complaint are, by and large, irrelevant to the woman’s privacy and the professionalism of a police member.

The interview should have been conducted privately, not made into a public spectacle.

There is no doubt that the constable should be disciplined based on the information to hand and made an example of.

The greatest concern, however, is that the constable was in a work environment where he believed this type of behaviour was acceptable.

When the issue is formally investigated, and the facts within this report are confirmed, the list of those disciplined will be extensive when the phrase “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” is applied to this incident.

The role of others and their breaches in order of their culpability are,

1. The Station Commander should bear the greatest responsibility for allowing a work environment and culture to evolve where this type of behaviour can be acceptable. The Station OC may not have been aware of the incident, which does not reduce culpability for cultural failings.
2. The Local Area Commander for failing to adequately oversee and manage the cultural failings of a Police Station where behaviours like this are acceptable, and in particular a Station where the officer is located. Whether the LAC was on duty or not is irrelevant.
3. The on-duty supervisor for not performing adequate supervision of staff. The Shift Supervisor must be aware of what is going on with all staff at all times, otherwise they can’t supervise.
4. The Policewoman for failing to take action or seeking out a supervisor to intervene and facilitate a private location for the continuation of the interview of the female complainant,
5. The Constable responsible.

A prima facie case against all the members engaging in conduct they displayed is likely to bring Victoria Police into disrepute or diminish public confidence in it, and is a defined breach of discipline under Section 125 of the Victoria Police Act 2013, which can attract severe penalties if found guilty.

The proliferation of domestic issues foisted onto the police is a major contributor to members downgrading the importance of these issues to generally not much more than annoyance, which is not an excuse for a professional Force.

But this may highlight an urgent need for the police, in domestic incidents, to further refine their role to keep the peace and, where necessary, to investigate to determine whether any party has committed an offence and to bring the suspect before the Court.

The welfare of the parties, victims or otherwise, and determining which party is at fault, or trying to adjudicate a solution, is not a police role, but the Courts

Other well-qualified individuals employed by the government would best serve these extended functions.

The solution is fairly simple.

The (original) model developed by the Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team (CATT) used in the Domestic space would alleviate a major workload issue for the police, freeing them up to attend to other matters requiring their attention.

It is well known that the most effective intervention for behavioural issues is an early one.

The Critical CATT Teams concept, which would translate to DVCATT, would, apart from reducing risks to victims, also allow the welfare of the families involved to be managed in real time, rather than through a future referral, reducing tensions.

Additionally, a fair proportion of the administrative workload created for Police attending DV incidents could be covered by the DVCATT system.

The interrelationship between the roles of the Police and DVCATT is a matter for the establishment of protocols.

For every DV incident allocated to a Police Unit, the same allocation must be made to the DVCATT to attend in a timely manner while Police are on scene.

This system will not only benefit the police but also the participants and families where DV incidents occur.

Having professionals attend in addition to the police in the first instance will most likely reduce the amount of DV requiring intervention by authorities, a win for everyone, including the broader community and the cost of DVCATT development and implementation will be offset by Police efficiencies, a dual benefit for the State.

A cost-benefit analysis on police overtime and administration hours alone would well cover this initiative.

The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) is funded by the members and the generous donations from the public. Please consider donating to help us continue to work for you. Simply click on the button below. Thank you – your generosity is very much appreciated.

DONATE