A difference of opinion has developed over what is to be done about individual police officers in NSW exposed as corrupt. Royal Commissioner James Wood argues that demanding dismissal rather than allowing resignation will act as a deterrent against officers giving evidence to the commission, especially confessions of corruption … the more so if they lose financially. Police Minister Paul Whelan, with the support of Police Commissioner Tony Lauer, wants dismissals, saying there is a moral difference. Mr Whelan has argued that corrupt officers must be punished and seen to be punished with the loss of reputation that comes with dismissal. And Premier Bob Carr, in an attempt to resolve the issue, suggests that corrupt police should lose the government-contributed part of their superannuation.
Mr Whelan’s view appears out of context. He is looking at it from the perspective of individual morality. That perspective is fine if one were dealing with a generally clean police force and isolated incidents of corruption. But where there is widespread corruption, where it is the rule rather than the exception, the moral climate is slightly different. This is not to condone corruption, nor to excuse it, but to accept that for people in that environment the moral offence is slightly less than in an environment where officers fly in the face of an expressed and universally accepted proscription.
Commissioner Wood may be wrong in his view that the public would not see a difference between dismissal and forced resignation. The public would probably see dismissal as a statement of punishment and disapproval by an employer and forced resignation as a face-saver that enables the employee to walk away saying “”I left; they did not sack me.” In cases of corruption, the public would probably like to see the former, but, in the NSW context, there is much to be said for Commissioner Wood’s view that in less serious cases corrupt police should be allowed to resign. After two centuries of corruption, the NSW force now has a chance to cleanse itself. For that to happen, the commission’s work must go on. If the avenue of voluntary confession and resignation with preserved benefits is closed, that work will be hindered.
There is now a greater public interest in cleansing the total force than in exacting punishment in individual cases. There is a greater public interest in using the commission’s process to create a force where corruption is permanently rare than in using the deterrent of dismissal in individual cases.
After the cleansing process has been completed and moral order has been restored, it will be more appropriate to insist on dismissal.
Taking away superannuation is not an answer either. It punishes the family of the police officer. Superannuation is about funding retirement; not a weapon of punishment. Although corruption is a breach of contract which might entitle the government to cancel its superannuation side of the contract, it is a huge penalty the size of which will be determined by length of service rather than the seriousness of the offence. It is better that serious cases are brought to courts and tribunals to assess guilt and the size of penalty.