 In the case of some of those people at the service, because they were unhappy of the situation that was occurring at that police station and they didn't feel like they're concerned about how Bench and Frost were able to get away with what he did before being treated seriously. Can I say to you that I, that's the first I've heard that, and also can I say to you that that isn't specifically within my knowledge and I couldn't comment on that matter? Oh, no I don't. Yes. At least three. How many are there? I can't speculate on that. What I can say to you is that at the present time there are at least three officers and I need to leave the door open that potentially is a result of an investigation. That might lead to further people. I'm sorry, I can't speculate on that. I don't have that knowledge. Yes they are and they're incredibly well supported when they do internally. One of my portfolio responsibilities is responsible for the internal witness support unit. And I can tell you that from the moment this young woman came forward and she is heroic. I want to be perfectly clear with respect to her. She met the organisational expectation and she exceeded it. She did everything that I would expect of her. And I have personally, I have personally been in contact with her and I have commended her for the temerity and her bravery in terms of coming forward with respect to this matter. And I would expect people and she heralds to a large degree a new breed of officer that are prepared these days to step up and meet their obligations. And as I said, 3,000 or so complaints in the course of a year, 25% of those are internally generated police officer and staff member making a complaint against another police officer and staff member. Well she is now working in another area for the organisation. She's doing incredibly productive work. I would think that her career looks incredibly bright. She's a very intelligent, astute police officer and we're very fortunate to have her and people like her. If that occurred, and I have to say to you that I'm incredibly sceptical that that would occur. I have to say to you that that is a small price to pay having regard for the fact that we are an organisation that is transparent and accountable and we're open. We don't always get it right and in those cases where we don't get it right then we try wherever we can to be on the front foot, to be open and accountable and transparent. And on this particular issue we've done all of those things. I think that there is this particular issue. It is in the public interest that we disclose. It is in the public interest that we release this particular image and this was part of our considerations when ultimately doing that. Can I say to you that with respect to the two pieces of video that were played as part of the criminal proceeding, there was a problem with both of those. The first one, there was one particular incident whereby the sound was compromised by virtue of the fact that there was music being played in the background. Normally what happens is the police officers suspend the music and that's a normal part of watch house practice. The music was designed to be suspended so that the audio could be picked up and this particular case it wasn't. So what it did was it imprinted the sound of the music over the particular audio stream related to the video. In the second and subsequent one what occurred was the audio picked up conversations that were not only unique to the particular transaction that was occurring in the assault that was occurring at that particular time. So what it did was it picked up conversation with a person at the charge counter, a completely separate disparate conversation that was occurring somewhere else. And these were quite personal matters relating to a person's mental health conditions and health issues as part of normal watch house procedures. That was the reason. Can I also say to you that our personal view was it was the image, it was the vision that was the story, not the sound. I think there were significant privacy issues surrounding that and the decision was taken corporately to, and in the interest of, it could have taken quite some time to resolve those particular issues. It was a case of let's get the vision out, we needed to do that. And what that meant was that the best, most expeditious way to do that was to ultimately remove the compromised audio part of that particular piece. I'm sorry, I can't comment on that. My investigator that had carriage of this particular matter was in the precincts of the court, but that's not within my knowledge and I can't comment on that. I'm sorry. I can say to you though that I have heard the particular audio files and that I believe that ultimately to have released those in their current shape, one would have been unproductive. In second, I have concerns about the privacy issues with respect to the other person who was completely separate from this particular matter. So you think it was good PR? No, I don't. I don't think it's good PR. My preference would have been for this never to have occurred and in terms of a public relations exercise, it's a nightmare. I've got to say to you, I would have much preferred this not to have occurred. That would be my very firm position, but can I say to you that we don't have a say as to whether or not this is good public relations. We are an open, accountable and transparent organization. When we identify these particular matters we need to get that message out and on this particular occasion we've done that and I think that we've done that very expeditiously and we've done that professionally. Yes, that's a very good point and the short answer to that is we certainly have an expectation that supervisors, commission officers and other people in authority as part of the normal inspection and audit program review in a random way. The CCTV footage from places like Watch Houses and other critical areas and that is also part of the inspection regime that is looked at centrally as well. No, not at this stage, I can't, I'm sorry. I can't make any comments about that by virtue of the fact that I don't know when that vision was inspected and what have you. But what I can say is that there's probably no more regulated, more highly regulated environment than a Watch House or a prison. We're very fortunate that in these particular matters we're able to go back to the CCTV and to use that within the context of the investigation. All of the supervisory issues that relate to this particular matter are part of our reference now with respect to those systemic broader issues that I spoke about as part of that third phase of the investigation. No, I can't. To do so would be flawed having regard for the fact that I'm unaware specifically of the vagaries of this particular investigation in terms of who's left to be interviewed and what have you. I can say though is that the investigation is well advanced having regard for the criminal matters that have clearly been pursued and have been resolved recently and that many of the issues that have fallen out of that are now part of the ongoing disciplinary investigation. At this stage, no. Issues with respect to court sentences are not matters that I can comment on and you naturally enough would understand that there is an appeal period. That appeal period is still current and that would be really unwise for me in terms of wanting to make a comment generally and secondly I would never be critical of the court process in terms of what might have occurred. I don't hold that view. I can understand that some people would think that that was the case. I would think that that would probably be a fairly mean spirited view having regard for the fact that we put the vision out there and we put the vision out there voluntarily. We weren't drug into a process kicking and screaming. We did that voluntarily. We did that for the very right reasons. My view is that the telling story here is the story with respect to the matter that's on the public record that went to the court process. But more importantly is the fact that we were able to put out the vision and that we had vision and that we were able to get it out there so quickly after the event. And I think that that's the issue that we need to focus on and I think that from that perspective that we've met the organizational expectation and also the community's expectation with respect to this. Could I just make a closing comment and it's something that I've picked up in recent media interviews with respect to the union's view with respect to this issue. And the point that I'd make is and this is around comments that the union have made with respect to the police service and particularly the commissioner and senior members of the organization not recognizing the inherent dangers and issues that police officers encounter. And it would be remiss of me not to make the point that the vast majority of police officers and the figures quote in 99.9 is actually higher than that. The vast, vast majority of police officers and this particular issue was a complete aberration I've got to say to you. But the vast majority of police officers are very good and decent police officers that join for the very right reasons. They're hardworking. They work in very, very difficult contexts. And the organization, I would think, recognizes their hard work that this particular person and his actions on this occasion should be seen in no way to be, to exemplify the fine work that occurs from one end of Queensland and the other and the rapport that those police officers have with their community. And I would hope that the community would see that in this particular case that the actions of the service were responsive, were measured and appropriate, were consistent with issues of legitimacy and accountability. But moreover, in no way did the actions of this officer reflect the attitude or the industry of the vast majority of Queensland police service officers. The short answer to that is not necessarily would you be charged. It would depend upon the circumstances. And the point that I would make to you is that that is very much applicable to this particular case. It's the circumstances and it's the knowledge and it's the contribution and it's those factors that were operating on the mind of that individual at the time that are factors that were taken into account considering potentially criminal charges. Can I say to you that my view and from the evidence that we've elicited from that particular matter, there is insufficient to institute criminal proceedings against any of the officers, except for the officer that was charged and dealt with in the court. Can I thank you for your interest in this particular matter and certainly your responsiveness to it and certainly it demonstrates to us that this is a very significant issue and it's one that we've treated seriously. So thank you most.