 Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for your time. Apologies for keeping you waiting. OK, well, are you ready to go? OK, thank you. I'm here, obviously, at your request, and I thank you for the chance to discuss this with you. The issue is about police gratuities. The service, as we indicated we would last year, revised our policy. The policy is still in the stage of consultation, and it's gone out to both police unions. Unfortunately, it was leaked apparently, and it was the subject of an article in today's courier mail. If I could just talk a little bit about where we're going with the new policy, which is intended to introduce from the 1st of July, subject to appropriate consultation and everything being in order in that regard. Broadly, there are probably three areas that I would just like to talk to for a moment. The first is the issue of police receiving free entry into nightclubs and licensed premises and free alcohol. That's just not acceptable under any circumstances. I have maintained a consistent position on that, and I must say I hope that practice is not existing at all, and certainly it's not allowable and nor is it justifiable at all, so it's really quite clear-cut. At the other end, at the other extremity, is the issue of police receiving free transport, and in particular here in the southeast corner, free rail travel, and that's something that I'm not opposed to at all. I think there are benefits for that in the traveling public. I think the presence of police on public transport is a helpful thing and can help in terms of, particularly an officer in uniform, can help in maintaining good order on the public transport system, or an officer who may be off duty, sorry, in plain clothes, I should say, is able to intervene if there are problems. So that's something I support. I've had discussions in the past with Curell about that, and I support that as well. The more complex and difficult area is the middle ground, and that is the area of police receiving discounts at fast food outlets, and we tend to refer to McDonald's, but it's not only McDonald's, there are others as well. And there are two sides to that argument, and I'd just like to expand a little bit in the moment if I could on some of the two sides to that argument. But the service is considered that, the senior executive is considered it, and our view is that that practice has had its day, and it's time for us to move on, and if we are to be a truly professional police department, then receiving a half price discount food isn't entirely appropriate, and it's something we should bring an end to. Having said that again, can I say that we recognize that there are two sides to that debate in that argument? As a result, we formulated a draft policy that reflects that view, that it's not appropriate for police to receive discounted food at fast food outlets, food or coffee, and we have consulted with the unions. That consultation is ongoing. Some of the arguments against the practice are that it encourages or enables, I guess, extra patrolling of the fast food outlets. That there could be a belief, it wouldn't necessarily be so, that there could be a belief that if the fast food outlet made a complaint to police, that they might receive more favorable treatment than another premises. There's very much the public view, which is important, and that leads into appearance, and one example that's been cited is this, that if a police officer on duty in uniform goes not in a vehicle, but to the front counter or the counter at McDonald's on a Saturday at lunchtime and places an order for him or herself and colleagues back at the police station, and beside the police officer as a member of the public with children, making exactly the same order, and the member of the public pays $20 and for the identical order the police officer pays $10, what does the member of the public think about that? And those things are important and they're something we have to consider as well. So the issue of public acceptance and public view is something we need to be mindful of. The arguments in support of the discount food include that it is not something the police solicit, it is offered by the company, and that's true in all cases that I'm aware of in any event, that it's convenient, that it's a widespread practice, and in some cases it certainly is. Although in some jurisdictions there is a trend to limit the practice as well, and the amount of money is a relatively modest and small amount of money. So having made those views, can I just again restate that the policy is still in draft form, we are still consulting, our intention is to introduce it on the 1st of July and we'll keep the media informed as to how the consultative stage of the policy unfolds and where it goes from here. Happy to take any questions. Yes, I think it's not much to put to employers or journalists but only to union memberships like union shoppers or professional bodies which do offer fairly significant discounts. We're all up for that. Yes, that's a good point, and it's one certainly that the union are making at the moment, and I believe certainly have raised in the past, police and probably members of other emergency services and perhaps the Australian Defence Horses in a similar sense to lawyers and other professionals could possibly be entitled to similar discounts. I don't know that that, and that's not an unusual practice that if you're a member of a professional body that a particular company may give you a discount. I do think though that there is a distinction between that and getting half price food at a fast food outlet. So I don't think it's entirely fair to say that it's exactly the same. I don't think it is. Are you talking about just the level, I guess the amount of discounts, say instead of 50% with the police, say if you're with a union, you may only get what, 20% off? Is that what you're talking about? No, with the discounted food and coffee, what we're saying, what the police department, what I'm saying as your commissioner is that a discount because you are a police officer on duty is something that we shouldn't accept. Would you object to say the police union is creating a discount car to organise, basically handled through the police union for them to get discounted? Yeah, look, that's a good question and I can't give you an answer because I would have to see how that works. If the police union were to do that in partnership with the fast food outlets, that would be an interesting concept because what it would mean as I would understand it is it would be a distinction from the normal use of that practice, which is if you're a member of a particular body and again be it a lawyer or a teacher or a doctor or a dentist, that say a book company will give you a 10% or 20% discount on the books that they sell because you produce that card. The distinction here, and I've not heard of this before, it would be the expansion of that card as I understand it to a police officer and at the moment my understanding is the discount is only offered by fast food outlets when the officer is on duty. So there would be some complexity there about how the card would work. Would it only be that the officer was on duty? Would it be at all times that a police officer on production and the card gets a discount and what the discount would be? So I'd have to take that on notice and look at that, look at the legality of it. It would certainly circumvent our policy intention. There's no doubt about that. So I can't give you an answer on that today but if the union put that to us and they haven't done so formally yet and it's supported by the fast food outlets saying, yes, we will do this, we'll consider it. I can't give you a definitive position on it at the moment. I guess in principle though, not a bad idea. The concept, well again it would circumvent our policy intent but on the other hand it may be that it would be lawful for them to do that and for the fast food company to do that but I can't give you a firm answer on that at the moment. We'd have to look at the proposal and then consider it and get legal advice on it. My commission is what you're saying is that the police have to just seem to be about the law and respect the fact that there's no suspicion that it could lead to corrupt behavior. Look, that's a really good point. To me this is about public confidence and our professionalism and I'm not saying that in the past and certainly no officer has breached our policy in the past because our policy has allowed this to happen in the past. I'm also of the view that I don't think this is the most serious matter we'll ever deal with within the police department. I do agree that there are two sides to this argument but we've considered it really carefully and we believe that if we are to be a truly professional police department and have the total confidence in the Queensland community which is our aspiration and our goal and our aim then the time has come for us to bring an end to the practice of half price discount food to police who are on duty. What do you say to the argument then that the police have a pretty hard job? There's perhaps not that many perks to being a police officer. What's wrong with getting some cheaper food, some faster food? Look, it is a hard job, that's quite right and that is one of the arguments for it in support of it. But however, we have considered that and we think that again, on balance it is a difficult job, there's no argument about that but police officers know that it's a difficult job, they know that when they take it on they know that every day when they go out to work but we think that on balance and again, there are arguments for and against but on balance we think in terms of true professionalism and the public image, the better position is not to accept this discount. Please let me once apply the new setting if you bring this new change just in July one that you continue to offer the 50% would that then become an illegal practice? No, I don't think so. Look, that there are views and I think they're extreme views that laws should be created and there's certainly not views the police department has ever expressed that laws should be created to make it illegal. I don't believe that so and that would never be my recommendation to government to do that and you are quite right, I guess in raising that as a point that that would make it more difficult for the police department to enforce the policy if a fast food proprietor says, well, I don't care what the police department says if you come to my premises, you'll get a discount that would make it harder because again, this is not something where we're going to be sending people from ethical standards command out to spy on people that doesn't want to justify any of that sort of behavior. This is something that I hope if it becomes policy our officers would accept and embrace and would simply not engage in the practice. Well, when it comes to though, punishment and or investigation, but what sort of punishment? That's a long way down the road yet. The policy's not even in place yet. We're still in the consultative stage and I'm happy to discuss that further at some future time. But look, we expect really high standard of police officers but it's quite right that we do. It's quite right that we do and we want the community to have confidence in us. We've got 15,000 people in the police department last Thursday. We swore in our 10,500 officers, we've got 10 and a half thousand sworn officers. Inevitably each year some of those officers will do the wrong thing and have to face disciplinary action and in the worst cases, they'll be dismissed from the service. I guess any large police department in the world would be in that situation. But nothing stays still and if you look at how things were 20 years ago, straight after the Fitzgerald inquiry, there was enormous change but nothing stays still. And we have to continuously revive, revise, I should say what we do and what our practices are. And this is an issue that's come to light in recent times. It's been the subject of debate for some years and our position, my position is that we think that the day has come for this to come to an end and that we would want our officers to pay full price for their meals, their food, their coffee, as members of the public do. To your knowledge, what happens in other jurisdictions? Good question. It's very widespread. Some jurisdictions adopt a similar policy to the one that we hope to bring in from the 1st of July. No, I can't and it's not for me to comment on other jurisdictions with respect. I'd have to ask you to go to them. But there's a developing trend in the United States of America for this practice to be not allowed by police departments. Our other jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand have varying policies on it. My understanding is that some frown on it and don't support it, where others allow it and my reading of other policies are, they're a bit ambiguous about it. But it's probably better and I say this with the greatest respect for, if you wish to, for you to go to the other departments and ask them yourself, rather than me to speak on their behalf. This practice is, for this approach, is best practice. And if so, what research should you base it on? Yeah, there's not a lot of research and it's more an evolving situation in terms of the community's expectation. I mean, we exist as an organisation to serve the community and to provide for their safety and security. We need their confidence and their support in doing that. I'm sure that if you survey the community today, there would be a mixed view on this. The most recent research in Queensland that I'm aware of in my view is really quite dated. It goes back to 1993, as I understand, it was conducted by Dr. Tim Prenzler from Griffith University. With the greatest respect to Dr. Prenzler, I do think that's fairly dated research. Nonetheless, that research indicated that the vast majority of people surveilling over two thirds weren't supportive of the practice of police getting a discount. Probably needs to be borne in mind that that was straight after Fitzgerald. So, look, we've considered it as the senior executive of the service, I've considered it. And again, it's one of those situations, and I hope I'm not being too repetitive for you, but with their arguments foreign against, but we felt that we needed to firm up on our position. We have, and our view is that it's a practice that we don't believe, and I don't believe, should continue. Can you just put some other matter on Afghan refugees who died of modern detention centre? Is that your area to investigate, or is that about the individual matter? Sorry, where did that happen? The social justice group has just sent an email asking another Afghan refugee who's died of detention centre in Queensland. Yes. Those matters are investigated by the state police. Of course, was that at Shurg or near Weaver? That's mine. Yes, yes. And that's the case, and that would be the second one in recent times. Now those matters are investigated by the state police for the state coroner. Any death in Queensland is subject, any unnatural death in Queensland is subject to investigation by the coroner, and the coroner uses the Queensland Police Service for that purpose. So we would be, I expect investigating that death on behalf of the state coroner. Whilst the property is commonwealth property, my understanding of the federal and state law is that the federal law doesn't enable a death investigation. So there's no charge of murder, for example, under federal law, it's under state law. I'm not suggesting this is a murder, of course, for a moment, but that's how it works. Okay, any other questions? All right, well, thank you for your time on this issue, and I undertake to get back to you as the situation unfolds and as we firm up and implement the policy in due course. Thank you.