Police officers hold a special position in our society. They exercise considerable power, both by dint of law and by mere presence with back-up. The public looks to its police force as protector and law enforcer for the benefit of all in society. They are indeed the thin blue line.
People who take up a career in policing usually enter the force with some very high ideals — of upholding the law and protecting law-abiding citizens against the lawless. Those ideals should be nurtured.
In order to nurture those ideals, those who head the police force must not only lay down the highest standards for those in the force, but also put in place the means of enforcing those standards. We have seen in the past in Queensland and NSW the corruption of those ideals, partly through a failure to enforce standards. Since then police forces have rightly required tigher scrutiny of police officers in order to ensure standards are met.
Last week the Federal Court rightly reinforced that view. Justice Paul Finn said that the commissioner of the Austrlaian Federal Police had the power to order that a member of the force undergo a urine test for drugs. He said that police officers gave up some of their freedoms because of the significance and sensitivity of policing.
Clearly, there are questions about whether random urine tests are appropriate for people in the ordinary workforce, though that might be different for people working in areas where safety is critical. But they are appropriate for the police force — on grounds of safety (because police use firearms and pursuit vehicles) and on grounds of probity (because there should be no hint of illegal activity by police).
Drug testing is part of routine life for sportspeople. Ther eis a greater case for it to be for police, provided, of course, there are rigorous checks to ensure samples cannot be mixed or