STORIES  Guidelines for STORIES 080524.pdf

Since 1989–1990 Queensland’s uniformed police officers have worn uniform and name tags as distinct from some of the officers in the periods prior to then.

It was very early in the three year term of Commissioner Noel Newnham that he decreed that uniformed officers would wear name tags and be in uniform. These decrees were not very popular for some officers who had never worn name tags and rarely put on their uniform. The latter applied particularly to country commissioned officers. To put these situations into perspective, the eras of uniform and identification are outlined to the best of my recollection from when I was sworn in, in 1960.

1960: Uniformed officers in the country wore khaki shirts, light brown serge tunics and trousers, light brown slouch hats and brown boots. City officers wore light grey shirts, navy blue trousers and tunics, black ties and belts, navy blue caps or white helmets and black boots. The traditional scouts’ belt buckle was on issue for all and I understand that it was a very good bottle opener. The navy blue trousers had a lighter blue stripe down each side of them.

Metal numbers were worn on shirts or tunics on the edge of the shoulder. These numbers were 904 below a member’s registered number. In my case my shoulder number was 5566 and my registered number was 6470. (My recollection is that, if anyone ever complained about a police officer wearing a certain number it was necessary to add 904 and then go to the seniority list to work out who the officer was.)

The difference between summer and winter uniforms was coat off or coat on. There were no short-sleeved shirts although some country officers seemed to have theirs shortened from time to time.

I was issued with two collared shirts, two without collars and several detachable collars. The move from detachable collars to fixed ones obviously commenced in 1960. What a breakthrough this appeared to be to those who washed and ironed our shirts; also to those who had to get them together prior to going to work. Grades and ranks were shown by stripes on the shirts and tunics.

Late 1960s: The whole state moved to drab olive about this time; that is khaki shirts, drab olive trousers and tunics, brown belts, ties, boots and caps. I think that the scouts’ belt buckle remained on issue. There were still no official short-sleeved shirts although some of the country police used to appear in them.  The identification numbers remained on the outside shoulder of shirts but were moved to the lapels of tunics when they were worn. Again the only official difference between summer and winter uniforms was the coat off or on. Grades and ranks were shown by stripes on the shirts and tunics.

1970s: The whole state moved from drab olive to navy blue trousers and tunics with light blue shirts, dark blue ties, white topped caps and black boots/shoes. I think that prior to all having white topped caps, traffic officers wore them to distinguish themselves from general duties personnel.

It was during this era that the numbers disappeared from shirts and tunics for constables, constables first class, and senior constables, with these being incorporated into the cap badge. Sergeants had a cap badge with ‘Sergeant’ thereon—so it can be seen that an officer in this era, without his or her cap on, bore no means of identification.

Also during this era, grades and ranks were shown by means of a shoulder board with the words ‘Queensland Police’ embroidered thereon for constables and different configurations of metal stripes for constables first class to senior sergeant. During this period, the open neck shirt was introduced for summer months. It was a specially cut open neck shirt that was not designed to be done up like the ones of recent years.

Commissioned officers: My recollection is that they never changed to the drab olive uniform mainly because they had to purchase their uniforms. My further recollection is that they wore shoulder boards on which were displayed their ‘pips’ to distinguish a sub-inspector from an inspector. In the 1960s the only ranks above inspector were chief inspector, Commissioner’s inspector, deputy commissioner and Commissioner. They always wore a distinctive cap with silver braid and a unique badge.

In the 1960s in Brisbane, the only commissioned officers you would see in uniform were at the major metropolitan headquarters stations; that is Roma Street, Woolloongabba and Fortitude Valley. I believe that it was pretty rare to see commissioned officers in uniform at other establishments around the state.

As an inspector and superintendent from 1981 to 1988 when I was transferred to Gympie as the regional superintendent, North Coast Region, I was the most senior officer wearing a uniform at QPS Headquarters. The assistant commissioners, deputy commissioner and Commissioner only wore uniform for swearing in parades and possibly the occasional police funeral. The Commissioner wore his uniform for special functions at Parliament House, Government House and on Anzac Day.

When I moved to Gympie, I followed the trend of all commissioned officers in the country, wearing plain clothes except for the opening of police stations and on Anzac Day, to lay a wreath, but afterwards reverting to plain clothes to participate in social activities.

This situation occurred through the Commission of Inquiry (1987–89) and until Commissioner Newnham decreed that name tags and uniforms were to be worn by all uniformed personnel from constable to Commissioner.

The name tag era onwards: This was one of the reforms introduced as a result of the Commission of Inquiry and was no doubt aimed at accountability of the actions of police officers. After all, Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended that detectives work in uniform no doubt to prevent them from doing things which would be made easier if they were in plain clothes. But this was probably only one of only a few recommendations not implemented.

Commissioner Newnham set the example and directed that senior officers follow. It was not hard for me to do this but I know that some commissioned officers in country areas found it quite difficult to be identified as a senior police officer at all times while travelling to and from work and while on duty.

The only exemption from wearing name tags, to my knowledge, was granted in about 1995 when I was successful in putting up to the administration a recommendation made to me by former Inspector Bob Dallow when he was in charge of the Brisbane City Watch-house. At that time, up to eighty-seven jail prisoners were held in the watch-house and some staff members were fearful of repercussions particularly to their family if their identity were readily known to these criminals. The concession won, which I believe still applies in December 2016, was that officers would wear a tag with their rank and number only while they were performing designated watch-house duties.

Embroidered name tags: No doubt many readers would have seen on television, in particular, how police personnel and officers of armed services overseas have embroidered name tags, which usually show their family names, and that Australian armed service personnel have had embroidered name tags for many years. Over time, the pin-on name tags issued to Queensland police officers, have come in for their fair share of criticism, mainly from officers involved in operational duties on the street.

In about 1996 I put up at a Senior Executive Conference that operational police officers should have embroidered name tags on their shirts and tunics. But after the logistics personnel had done their sums on the cost of doing this for all uniformed personnel, I withdrew my submission. Since then, however, I have seen several scenes of crime officers with embroidered name tags on their overalls. I understand that they have paid for this improvement themselves.

All former Queensland police officers will remember an amendment to the Justices Act about thirty-five years ago which brought about what became known as 'hand up briefs'. To those who are not familiar with this term, I'll explain it. If statements contained a declaration in a given form and were witnessed by a solicitor, a barrister or a justice of the peace, and the court agreed—usually if the police prosecutor and the defence did not object—they were accepted as declared and without the witness having to give evidence. Police officers were not to know whether this procedure would be adopted with the result that most statements being taken for prosecution purposes were witnessed by a justice of the peace (JP).

As most would recall, that was alright if a civilian at the station was a JP but after hours if a JP would not come to the station the witness had to be taken to the JP and this could be at 1.00 am in the morning. (A Cloncurry Stock Squad member told me once that it was not uncommon for him to have to drive fifty kilometres out and back to have a statement witnessed by a JP.)

You are wondering where I fit into this matter. The officer in charge of the then The Gap CIB, Detective Sergeant Noel Hatwell (later to become the Senior Sergeant Tactician at Ferny Grove, later still, the Complaints Inspector at Metropolitan North Region and who unfortunately died from cancer), approached me when I was Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Metropolitan North Region.  He had been to New South Wales on police business and observed that police officers there were able to witness statements for court purposes.  I asked him to get some details on their procedure and furnish a report direct to me which he did.

I sent the report to the administration of the day and did not hear anything for a couple of months. Noel asked my Executive Secretary one day about the matter. I inquired of the administration and the file could not be found.  Luckily, I had kept a copy in my records and another one was duly dispatched to QPS Headquarters.

While I kept the file on bring-up and kept asking HQrs about it, nothing seemed to happen for at least two years although I had been assured that the necessary representations had been made to the Justice Department.  I had spoken to Deputy Commissioner Bill Aldrich several times about the matter and he indicated that in Victoria, where he came from, the police force also had had this facility for years.

Mr Denver Beanland, who was then Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in the Coalition Government at the time and who was born in Kilcoy—my home town—was the member for Indooroopilly in the State Parliament. He was very supportive of the Neighbourhood Watch program and Community-Police Consultative Committees in his electorate and I saw him at meetings on a regular basis.  He administered the Justices Act so I asked him to have a look at the progress of the amendment which I was assured was being considered. A few days later, someone on his behalf indicated that he did not know a lot about it and asked if I would be able to send in a copy of my file which I did very promptly.

The Minister opined a few weeks after that he was confident that he would be able to get an amendment through Parliament which he did. But instead of having to get statements witnessed by a police officer as had been suggested, no witnessing is required if a declaration in a prepared format is made.

So, for many years police officers did not have the same privilege as solicitors, barristers and JPs, and had to inconvenience witnesses as most former police officers would know. Possibly when that legislation was passed, police officers were not, in the eyes of the legislation drafters and makers, up to the standard of the former three or could not be trusted.

I am not aware of the vote in the house because at that time the government was relying on the vote of Ms Liz Cunningham, MLA for Gladstone, to have legislation considered. It would not surprise me if some Labor members voted in favour of it because I had spoken to Mr Tom Barton, MLA, when he was Shadow Minister for Police about the proposed amendment and he could see no reason for him or his colleagues to oppose it. One can see the results of a persistent subordinate and his boss being prepared to keep on keeping on about something that has benefited all police officers.

Some time ago I saw a notebook which was being trialed by the QPS. It was somewhat smaller than the one which was used by Queensland police officers for many years. The only change until this recent trial was when the notebooks were numbered in the early 1970s. As the Detective Sergeant who showed me the trial notebook did not know the history of the numbering, I will tell you about it because few know about its background.

This change came about because of a recommendation made by two New Scotland Yard investigators who were brought to Queensland by then-Police Minister, Max Hodges, to investigate what he believed was the unlawful involvement of police officers in off-the- course starting price betting, prostitution and gaming. (Readers will quickly realise that these same three subjects were to the fore in the Commission of Inquiry which commenced in 1987.)

Four Queensland police officers, including myself, were deputed to work with these two investigators who unearthed little or no evidence against any serving or former Queensland police officer. To the best of my knowledge, there was no recommendation of any substance made against any police officer.

But I recall distinctly one of the investigators expressing concern when he found that one of the police officers interviewed had more than one official notebook. (Memories will tell readers whether this practice was widespread or not and particularly among detectives.)

Overcoming this practice was one of the few recommendations made by the investigators, and soon after, all notebooks were numbered, were recorded in a register at the time of issue and again upon completion, and recorded in another register when they were inspected each month. While some of these processes may have been undertaken previously, they were not as distinct as those implemented following the recommendation being approved.

While the police notebook does not appear to be the main recording device of a police officer that it was twenty or so years ago, those who have used it since the early 1970s would have been subject to greater checks and balances than those in place before they were numbered.

While retired Assistant Commissioner Peter Freestone and I were personal assistants to the Commissioner, we were given a pretty clear run on anything that had been suggested to improve the lot of operational police officers.

Over time it became apparent at most police stations in the state that if a recognised police photographer and later a crime scene officer was not available to take photographs of persons charged, the detainee would not be photographed at all although fingerprints were taken when it was lawful to do so.

The late Al Higgs, then Officer in Charge of the Photographic Section, was reluctant to allow anyone other than recognised police photographers to take photographs mainly because of the anticipated 'stuff-ups'.  My recollection is that he felt that the answer was more police photographers and crime scene officers. He realised that this was not possible and also that it would never be possible to cater for the smaller centres where persons were being charged on a regular basis. With some reluctance he agreed to a trial of a Canon 'Sureshot' camera and my recollection is that it was an instant success. Somehow more funds were made available to purchase more and more of these cameras and a frame was made up by the Allied Trades Section at the old Police Depot to hold names/numbers and ensure that the right distance between the offender and the camera was maintained.

Had Peter, Al and myself, been made to follow the chain of command where reports would have been exchanged over this issue, it is probable that it would never have got off the ground. As can be realised, however, quite quickly police officers statewide were given the means by which they could take and place on record for the benefit of their colleagues photographs of the people they were charging. When you think about it, it was not rocket science—just sanctioned actions by police officers who cared about policing in this vast state.

Two recent incidents made me believe that few serving, or former police officers, would know how this privilege came about. The incidents were to hear of an inspector changing into plain clothes and using his identity card to travel home free-of-charge and another police officer removing his name tag while enjoying this same privilege on trains.

Many have all heard of the power of former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and the power behind the Premier, Allen Callaghan, his Press Secretary. It was probably 1980 when Brisbane did not have the security officers and Railway Squad members riding its trains like today (very effectively I might add). My recollection is that there was much vandalism and unlawful conduct on Brisbane trains, so much so, that it was unwise for females in particular to travel on them at night.

I recall distinctly Allen Callaghan telephoning then-Commissioner, Terry Lewis, and complaining about his son and another youth—possibly his brother or a friend—being assaulted on a train one weekend by a group of 'hoons'.

Also I recall later being advised by the Commissioner that he had told Allen that a quick fix to this problem would be to allow police officers—whether in uniform or plain clothes —to travel free-of-charge on the suburban train network. (Up to that time any police officer who travelled on a train had to pay his or her fare and there seemed to be few exceptions to this policy.)

It was soon after this telephone call—and probably the next day—that Cabinet decided to allow police officers this privilege which still remains in place today. While most, if not all, police officers taking advantage of this privilege are not aware of its origin, it is hoped that there are not too many using it for other than the reasons intended by Cabinet.

I was motivated to write this article after reading an article in the Sunday-Mail newspaper of 18 June 2006, portion of which reads:

A Brisbane service station attendant held at gunpoint while working alone at night has been awarded $84,000.00 compensation, Judge Wally Tutt found that the service station owner had breached its duty of care to provide a safe workplace for the female attendant by not providing a security guard at night and that the decision could have ramifications for businesses that have employees working alone at night, including service stations, convenience stores, bottle and video shop (service station was at Kingston).

At that time the concept of duty of care was fairly new to our way of life, and until 1998, I did not have much idea of what it meant or would mean in the years to follow. I was in charge of the South Eastern Police Region based at Surfers Paradise. Chief Superintendent Ken Morris was my Operations Co-ordinator. We had become aware of the efforts of then Detective Senior Sergeant (now Assistant Commissioner) Mike Condon, the officer in charge of the Logan District Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB), about the effectiveness of security cameras in businesses particularly in Logan Central.

Mike and his staff members had found that many of the cameras were ineffective in that they were operating with worn out tapes or were poorly positioned in the premises. I must say I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Detectives were involved in correcting ineffective practices but realised that it would be in their interests to spend the time and effort on this task. (In recent years we have all seen how major crimes continue to be solved through footage captured on closed circuit television cameras.)

I was soon to hear of a Logan District function which was being headed by Mike to draw attention to business people of the effectiveness of cameras in their premises. Ken Morris, the District Officer, then-Superintendent (and later Deputy Commissioner) Kath Rynders, and I attended.

We were surprised at the roll-up and the range of subjects covered. Two subjects which appealed to us were a lecture by then Crown Prosecutor (now Judge) Kerry O’Brien on ‘duty of care’ and a demonstration of security glass panels intended to be used as partitioning to separate patrons from attendants. It was brought home to us that the proprietors of 24/7 service stations particularly had a duty of care to provide a safe working place for their employees and one way to do this was by using the glass partitions demonstrated to us.

We were also told that it was only a matter of time before held-up employees would be suing their employers because of the lack of protection afforded to them from offenders who had jumped counters, threatened them and stole money from them. (In fact Ken knew of a barrister who had commenced to specialise in duty of care actions.)

This was no surprise to us because there had been several incidents in the region of sole employees—some of them female—being held up in service stations late at night and robbed. One I distinctly recall was where a female attendant was relieved of her clothing to prevent her leaving the service station to call for assistance.

We run a similar function in the Gold Coast District and had a very good response from business people. Unknown to Ken and myself, Mike had got onto the management of BP and had received a commitment to place the glass partitioning in some ten service stations in south east Queensland. Their intention was to leave sufficient space at the bottom of the partitioning through which a loaf of bread and a two litre container of milk could be passed. (I heard at the time that this was the practice followed in service stations in the United States of America.)

I was so pleased to hear of this commitment that I contacted the most senior person possible in BP to compliment him on the company’s commitment. While BP had a trial of the glass partitioning in one of its service stations at Brisbane Road, Ebbw Vale, for some reason unknown to Mike, Ken or myself, BP never carried through with its promise. The only thing I have seen in service stations in recent years is the provision of a few stainless steel strands across the space between customers and the attendant.

Returning to the concept—duty of care—I believe that a lot of employers will find out the hard way what this means when they are on the receiving end of some of their employees who have not been provided with a safe working place.

In 1988 or 1989—prior to regionalisation commencing in 1990—the Administration of the Force as it was then called decided to give out to regional superintendents (like I was at Gympie) so many hours of overtime, so many Saturday and Sunday penalty rate units, so much for traveling allowance and so much for telephone usage.  Usually these figures were based on the previous year’s usage.

Then district officer at Gympie, Graeme Hollands, (then Inspector and who retired as a Superintendent on the Gold Coast) indicated that half of his district’s allocation for overtime was spent on calling out breath operators to conduct breath tests and that, if the Traffic Act could be amended to allow corroborating officers to conduct tests, he would be able to use more of his budget on more genuine overtime. (No offence is meant to former breath operators but at one stage every test on overtime resulted in a three-hour minimum claim, regardless of whether it was done ten minutes after another one.)

I raised this at a Regional Superintendents’ Conference and many times thereafter before anything was done. From memory this took between eight and nine years to achieve.

 

This was yet another example of the Transport Minister administering the Traffic Act and the QPS enforcing the breath testing part of it.  I recall being told once that when the digital breathalyzers came into being generally (these did not require a manual reading like the original ones) there would be every chance that the amendment would be made but that took about three more years of deliberations.

One thing I always had in mind and put across repeatedly to anyone who would listen, was that Deputy Commissioner Bill Aldrich often told me that in Victoria the corroborating and arresting officers had been able to conduct tests for many years. This was like the witnessing of statements which could be done by police officers in Victoria but not in Queensland until an amendment was made.

Had the overtime allocations remained largely Brisbane-based, it is probable that the amendment, which eventually materialised, would not have been sought by me at the request of a very effective district officer.

I make a final point:  When breathalyzers were first introduced into Queensland they had to be operated by Government Medical Officers throughout the state.  

It was probably 1996 when Superintendent Jack Richard, who then commanded City Division, which is the largest in the state, approached me one morning with the remark 'Boss, we have to do something about these bastards carrying bladed weapons in the mall'.

When following up with him about his remark he mentioned that his then-Juvenile Aid Bureau (JAB) was constantly speaking to young people in the mall—many of Asian descent—and that they were finding that they were carrying bladed weapons—some up in the meat cleaver category.

Jack offered to arrange a demonstration for me of the weapons 'seized' so far. This he did rather quickly because of the interest I had displayed in his remarks. Soon after, Detective Sergeant Dave Moore (another Dave Moore), then-officer in charge of the City JAB, arrived in my office and quickly threw out on the carpet a sheet of plastic which had had pockets made on it.

From memory these pockets contained about twenty bladed weapons of various forms. They were all capable of doing massive injury and some were, in fact, meat cleavers. Dave could explain very quickly who had possessed the weapons and also the circumstances under which they were seized.

Again, from memory, I think I raised some correspondence to the Commissioner's Office about this problem because at that time, the only offence was to have possession of a bladed weapon eighty millimetres or more in length in a night club. (I later became aware of the reason for the eighty millimetres and that was when the proposed amendment was being discussed by coalition members of Parliament, then in government, a member's pocket-knife measured seventy-nine millimetres and that was why it was made an offence of eighty millimetres or more.)

 

Soon after I was sitting beside then-Minister for Police, Russell Cooper, at a function in the Queen Street Mall and I mentioned that there was a need to do something about this problem. I offered to arrange a demonstration of the weapons seen by me and he agreed. Some time elapsed but the demonstration was not requested.

One day subsequently, however, the full Senior Executive Conference met the Police Union Executive in the presence of the Minister for Police. Then-Deputy Commissioner Bill Aldrich knew of my attempt to get something done and he asked me to arrange a demonstration of the weapons at this meeting, which I did. Before the demonstration commenced, Russell Cooper called out to me 'Greg I haven't forgotten the visit to Parliament House. See Frank and arrange it'. (Frank was former Assistant Commissioner Frank O'Gorman who then worked for the Minister.)

 

Needless to say, I saw Frank and the demonstration was arranged for a joint party meeting (a meeting of all Liberal and National Party Members and chaired by then-Premier, Rob Borbidge). Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan and I spoke first and then Dave put on his display which was quite impressive. Several members spoke for and against the amendment sought.

Two members (who are no longer in parliament) spoke against it quite vigorously and mentioned the onus which would be placed on a citizen to prove that he had a knife lawfully; also the possibility of zealous police officers accosting farmers and electricians who happened to be walking through a public place with a knife on their belt. (I had picked up that it was doubtful if the amendment sought would go through because there had been a tendency to go away from putting the onus of proof on the defendant like say the now-repealed Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act had done for many years.) One of these two was the fellow with the seventy-nine millimetre knife mentioned previously and the other had had an experience in a western town—the base of his electorate—of a former traffic officer becoming over zealous and issuing numerous tickets for seat-belt offences.

We were given so much time with the members and we then left and waited outside with representatives of the media who obviously had been summoned to hear of the progress on the amendment. We waited and waited and eventually one member who came outside for some reason told us that the debate was quite heated about the subject. When the Minister (Russell Cooper) eventually came out, he said that four of his colleagues had problems with the amendment but that he was confident that given time he would be able to get it through. He spoke to the media in moderated tones to what had been expected.

My recollection is that at this time the government had a majority of one on the occasions when an Independent Member voted with it. Also I believe that this member used to be ‘sounded out’ on proposed amendments and that if he or she was not in favour of the amendments, they would not be introduced.

Soon after this meeting I spoke to then-Opposition Spokesman for Police, Tom Barton (later to become Police Minister in the Labour Government) on a plane going to Townsville and he mentioned that he personally supported such an amendment.

Some time later I became aware that the amendment had been made and I was quite pleased to learn of that happening.

For many years now I have thought about finding out how the amendment got through Parliament and whether the Opposition at the time voted in favour of it.  In 2010 I got hold of some Hansard extracts and now trace the amendment:

• ·         On 5 March 1998 the Honourable Russell Cooper, Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing, moved that leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend a number of Acts affecting the powers and responsibilities of police officers and for other purposes.  The motion was agreed to and the Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill were read a first time.  (The Bill became the Police and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998).
• ·         The Minister then moved that the Bill be read a second time.  He then spoke at length in support of the Bill.  Part 6 of the Bill made various amendments to the Weapons Act 1990.  In the explanatory notes mention is made of section 51 (Possession of a knife in night clubs) ‘being omitted and replaced by a new section that better reflects community and police concerns over the increasing use of knives to commit offences’.  The notes continued:  ‘The section provides police officers with authority to prosecute a person who is in possession, or carrying, a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse.  This is achieved by defining the term ‘knife’ and includes a reasonable excuse section which contains examples which are not meant to be definitive.  Issues to have regard to when considering what is a reasonable excuse are also identified.  The section also provides that the possession or carriage of a knife for self defence is not a reasonable excuse’. 
• ·         During the Minister’s address to Parliament he said that the very important section ‘has been developed in response to a very serious problem in our community – that is, the carrying of knives in a public place with the intention of using them to cause fear or harm.  This Bill seeks to address this very worrying trend through the creation of a new offence in section 51 of unlawfully having possession of a knife in a public place’.
• ·         He also said that ‘police are currently powerless to remove weapons such as machetes and stilettos from people gathered in public places who clearly intend to cause trouble.  This legislation is a long overdue move to give police the powers they need to prevent knife-related offences before they happen’.
• ·         On 17 March 1998 the Honourable Tom Barton, who was then spokesperson for Police, Corrective Services and Racing and later became Minister for Police, etc, addressed Parliament in relation to clause 31 in the Bill which related to the new section 51 in the Weapons Act.  He said ‘I turn to clause 31 which relates to possession of a knife in a public place.  The Opposition supports this amendment.  ... the collection of confiscated knives of the Police Service is, quite frankly, frightening.  Machetes, flick knives and even sharpened screwdrivers can be dangerous weapons.’
• ·         The Police and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998 was assented to on 26 March 1998.    

This is an example of working police speaking up so that their senior officers can take matters forward with a view to amendments being made to the law for the good of the community. Also, it is worthy of mention that the amendment did not occur over night. It took many months and several reminders to headquarters, some of which were not always welcomed. But persistence paid off and the rest is part of history.

While I was told in the early stages of seeking this amendment that there was little chance of the onus of proof being shifted to a defendant, it is ironical that it got through, in effect, in the manner which we intended in the first place. Since this amendment was made, I have seen adverse publicity about the carrying of bladed weapons in public places but have taken a thankful sigh of relief that when able to I listened to two of my loyal and effective officers and did something about an out-of-hand situation.

Superintendent Jack Richard was an excellent all-round police officer. He always had a good rapport with all of his troops and was renowned for speaking up on their behalf. I trust that he is enjoying his well-deserved retirement. He can rest easy with my feeling of him and that is that he was always a ‘copper's copper’.

In the early days of the Goss Labor Government, protests were launched against logging on Fraser Island. From recollection, these commenced early in 1990 and went on for over twelve months before the government decided to end logging on this island which had been undertaken for many years. World Heritage listing followed.

While I may not see it in my lifetime, I predict that one day there will be a fierce fire on Fraser Island which will reduce to rubble the many trees that would otherwise have been removed under an effective logging plan. Facts often never heard, are that the Forestry Department strictly controlled the trees that were to be taken, that only re-growth timber was felled, that many people were employed directly and indirectly and that the island produced a unique type of timber.

I recall that Inspector Stan Rossow, then District Officer, Maryborough, had drawn up an operational order, which among other things, related to the arrest of protestors for a breach of the peace and their transportation to Hervey Bay for processing. (I always believed that they would beat the police officers back to the Island because I could not see them not being granted bail).

These were the early days of peaceful protests and at the request of then Deputy Commissioner Bob Kirkpatrick these were allowed to continue. Commander Jim O’Sullivan (later Assistant Commissioner, then Deputy Commissioner and later Commissioner) had been appointed in charge of the region (I had been Regional Superintendent for a couple of years but never got an interview for the position) and he was aware of the change in attitude.

In the early stages not much interference was caused to logging but as time went on the protestors became more of a nuisance with the result that the loggers and police officers became more and more frustrated.  Productivity was being affected and jobs were being threatened.

The Forestry Department particularly, but also the loggers, expected the police officers who were stationed on the island to solve the problem by the use of force if necessary. I felt that the Forestry Department should play a larger role and I remember calling a meeting in Maryborough of its senior officers, senior police and the two Members of Parliament who were involved (that was coverage of Fraser Island, Hervey Bay and Maryborough—the areas affected).

I distinctly recall telling all assembled that if a senior official of the Forestry Department indicated that the continued presence of protestors around a tree which was being felled would endanger lives police officers would then act to remove the offending protestors to 'a safe distance'.

While I do not think the Forestry Department officials liked doing this, it nevertheless was done and protestors were removed to a safe distance. But there was variance in the distance of removal and I did hear of trips from one side of the island to the other being regarded as a safe distance.

For those who have not encountered a ride in a short-wheel-base four-wheel-drive over this type of terrain, it would tempt you not to walk back quickly for another protest and subsequent removal to a safe distance. All-round it was a time and cost-incurring exercise. We had to use police personnel from most of the region to give a continuous coverage. We rented premises from time-to-time, supplied food and the officers looked after themselves extremely well. They were rotated from time-to-time and I am confident that many of them became well accustomed to the free and easy lifestyle on the island. Some regarded it as rest and recreation.

While we did not please the loggers in our stance (and I am sure that some of the police officers had difficulty in coping with the standoff tactics), we carried through with a decree by a new government that peaceful protests were to be permitted. But we also proved that peaceful went just so far and then it became a breach of the peace.

I recently saw a former Senior Sergeant who as a Sergeant was in charge of the operation on the island.  We recounted when I told him that he and his subordinates had to back off and let them demonstrate provided they did so peacefully; also that his response was, ‘Will you put that in writing?’ to which I replied, ‘Yes as soon as I get back to Gympie’. (Jim O’Sullivan and I had flown to the island in the Sunshine Coast Helicopter Rescue Service chopper.) The Senior Sergeant was Ken Salmon, aka Sockai, who retired from Maroochydore Station.