Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering that I don't believe that people referred to in the Bill should be elected in the first place. I honestly find this Bill quite hyperbolic and a little hysterical.

But this strikes me as a Bill that will likely end up with majority support regardless.

I can't see how anything I will be comfortable with supporting, will be supported by the sponsor.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I won't object - because it starts the work I wish to continue

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think it's pretty unparliamentary behaviour for a Senator to refer to any public servants as pigs.

Let alone the vast majority of police officers who carry out their work, including members of my family, with diligence.

AYE on the current amendment. I can see myself supporting what Senator Cris is proposing, because this Bill needs neutering.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support the amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The reality is, we've got two crowds here. Those who want to try to put something together that will actually be functional and those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks, without offering an alternative. When people are picking and choosing which unions to believe (despite a view that all work forces should be able to unionize) should exist, because of their personal view of it, isn't consistent. When you've got people talking about "pigs", "class enemies" and other hyperbolic and emotional terms, it gets beyond reasonable. 

I support the conditions that the President recommended.

However, the reason why this Bill should be pulled by the sponsor will not have anything to do with those of us who are trying to make it reality-based.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The issue IS the definition of entrapment here. If the police actively encourage people to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't, yes, that's inappropriate. But this creates two significant issues - the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do? the second being useful techniques, as has been mentioned, like finding paedophiles online or undercover work would be in serious jeopardy. If this secion is going to be retained, then I think its actually sensible to make the language as clear and unimpeachable as possible.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Alright, this is a serious question. Would you consider a pedophile contacting an under-cover officer online to be entrapment? Because personally, this is kind of the greyest area.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I need to think about it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Changing vote to NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Changing vote to NAY

...When did you vote AYE?

Apologies... thought I had voted abstain. I've been ill the past few days, gets a bit tricky to keep track sometimes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There is a fundamental issue here, which I think this Bill has picked up, but perhaps not carried. What jurisdictional authority does this Chamber have over local police forces?

The substance of the amendment has some issues.

1. 4.4 is obviously fine and important as a concept - but since this amendment removes PORCs (ugh... PORC... ) then the definition of these groups is up in the air, and we don't want this group to fall victim to subjective definitions. For example, lets say an officer is a member of a very conservative Church, they might publicly reject the more extreme teachings of the Church, but choose to stay for whatever reason. If someone determines that the group is homophobic or whatever, should that officer be refused employment? This is my serious issue with this Bill is that is leaves so many holes for subjectivity when, if we are able to do something on this, then it should be clear and unambiguous. Without being counter-productive.

2. 4.5 - I think this one should be limited to certain actions. I think random breath-testing is shown to have positive impacts when it comes to drink-driving arrests and deaths. If you tell people, police can't set up these sorts of things on federal funded roads (not just Federal highways) then it risks saying "alright people, up to you, but we won't stop you unless you're actively driving dangerously".

We need to strike a balance between transparency and actively crippling the capacity of the police to actually do their jobs. If you're drinking and driving, you deserve to get pulled over and you should always been very aware that there's risk you might be breath-tested randomly or be spotted. It's not just about a person's right to do something unmolested, which is a key freedom, it's ensuring that others are free from the risk of the negligent or knowingly risky behaviour.

But I do support this amendment as a further step.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

Lief, I think we need to put back in an oversight mechanism, but I don't think elected police councils per 25,000 residents is a great idea.

Again... no one has given me a clear response on this. Sure, we can limit what they do in the Federal space... but do we actually have the right to set these standards for local policing, especially on governance and recruitment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support this amendment, but will be providing an amendment once this one passes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This thing really is getting to a very risky place.

So, no one is going to address my concerns as whether or not this body has the right to be as prescriptive as this Bill is?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This thing really is getting to a very risky place.

So, no one is going to address my concerns as whether or not this body has the right to be as prescriptive as this Bill is?

If local police departments don't want to follow these very reasonable rules, they are free to reject federal funding entirely.

That certainly doesn't sound like a confident yes. Do we know what proportion of local police funding comes from the Federal Government? I have a feeling it's not very much.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

That's not the issue. The issue whether or not we have the physical capacity to force local authorities to undertake their policing operations in a certain way. In a Federated system, the Federal Government (generally) only has authority over issues that the regions do not, or have voluntarily handed over. So it's not about finding a reason why we can't, it's about ensuring that there is capacity for us to do it.

I'm getting a little irritated that this issue is being dismissed so readily, as it comes down to the actual ability for whatever this Bill ends up doing, to be enforced, regardless of what it says.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This has been what has been of deepest concern for me over the past few weeks. I'd urge the passionate proponents of this Bill to take this seriously.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That's kind of the point Senator Windjammer, my concerns go way beyond that one issue. There are elements that speak to conduct of local police of Federally funded-owned land, that is something over which we do have a clear capacity to act. But the remainder of the Bill speaks to actions that I strongly believe would risk being overturned by the simplest legal challenge.

Unfortunately the response from the main proponents of this Bill has been what I exoecred.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Doesn't the federal government designate hate groups or something like that? Couldn't we just clarify the bill to mention that instead?

OK - this still misses THE fundamental point. It is not just about the hiring and firing, outside of the discussions about operating on Federally owned-funded land, we probably do not have the Constitutional authority to dictate how local and regionally funded and organised policing operates... full stop.

If people want to craft something that is largely aspirational and bound for a legal challenge, be my guest. I think there is a way forward on this, but it's limited and will require cooperation with the regions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Senate should concern itself with passing the best legislation it can. If someone wants to challenge it after it becomes law, I have full confidence in our justice department to defend it.

I agree with Lief here; I haven't yet heard anything but a vague statement as to why exactly the provisions of the bill as it stands right now would be unconstitutional. If someone can give a coherent, specific argument on why this is out of bounds of the Senate's jurisdiction and proposes a viable alternative course of action, I would be up for that, but for now, I don't see why we can't keep this provision.

With respect Senator, the statements are not at all vague.

This is directing bodies over which we have no explicit jurisdiction, but another level of government explicitly does, to act and undertake their activities in a certain way. That is constitutionally questionable at best. If people wish to proceed down this path, that's your prerogative but I don't think our job should be about wish-fulfillment Bills that get struck down but people feel better for having tried. I want us to do something that is constitutionally valid and effective.

I will be providing amendments in the next 24 hours. I'm sure a few Senators will not like or support them, but I believe these will be the best way to get anywhere on this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

[quote]Amendment

Increasing Law-Enforcement Transparency Bill 2015

1. The Federal Government will allocate $50 million each year to the regions, divided on a population matrix, to increase measures to improve training and service provision by regional and local law enforcement bodies. In order to receive and retain this funding, the regions must acknowledge the following conditions.

1a. This funding cannot be directed toward the acquisition of equipment that are considered weapons of lethal force.
1b. This funding will be directed towards the provision of force-wide badge cameras for uniformed officers by the end of 2016. A further condition on the footage of these cameras is that while the relevant state and local authority will have ownership of said footage, the Federal Government will have full access to footage and the public will have the ability to view footage of direct relevance to themselves, after filing a freedom of information request through either their local jurisdiction, the regional government or the Federal Department of Internal Affairs.
1c. At least 20% of this funding must be directed towards increased training in non-lethal control techniques, community engagement and dispute resolution.
1d. At least 20% of this funding must be directed towards improvements in officer safety equipment (for example, stab-vests and improved body-armor).

2. An additional $20 million will be provided to the regions to enable them to institute full independent bodies to investigate alleged law enforcement misconduct.

2a. A condition of this funding being retained is that regions should institute clear definitions in legislation, of what is considered entrapment and what is considered valid engagement for the sake of law-enforcement.