Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy a side of life the average person is
Speaker 1: never exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to my chat with Vince Early, who uses
Speaker 1: his experience as a cop and an academic to identify
Speaker 1: and address issues relating to policing and the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system in a very pragmatic way. Are you happy with
Speaker 1: that introduction?
Speaker 2: That's beautiful.
Speaker 1: That's beautiful that I say it right, That's what you
Speaker 1: wanted me to say it. Look, obviously, Vince and I
Speaker 1: have history and we do joke around a bit, but
Speaker 1: I'm serious when I'm saying this to you, Vince, not
Speaker 1: the listeners that your opinion on law and all the
Speaker 1: issues do count. And I like you the view that
Speaker 1: you take on law and order, and there is so
Speaker 1: much to talk about. Your passion comes across as your
Speaker 1: Q and a outbursts that made you a YouTube sensation,
Speaker 1: embarrass your children, so many other things about crime I
Speaker 1: want to talk about. We left part one talking about
Speaker 1: domestic violence and the terrible consequences of it. I had
Speaker 1: a conversation with you before you came on, and I
Speaker 1: was talking about meeting Hannah Clark's parents and Sue and
Speaker 1: Lloyd Lloyd Clark, who are just such impressive people. People
Speaker 1: know the name Hannah Clark and the three children were
Speaker 1: set alight in a made a vehicle as a result
Speaker 1: of domestic violence, horrendous crime, and Sue and Lloyd have
Speaker 1: been campaigning. I think they part of the thing that
Speaker 1: they campaigned for was the introduction of coercive control. I've
Speaker 1: had them on the been fortunate enough to speak to
Speaker 1: them on the podcast, and we're talking about domestic violence,
Speaker 1: and I made the point to them. I said, if
Speaker 1: the offender was forced to wear an ankle bracelet that
Speaker 1: notified Hannah if he was in five kilometers, because there
Speaker 1: were indicators there something bad was going to happen. You
Speaker 1: could see it. It was building up, and I think
Speaker 1: that was what everyone's frustration was. Ankle bracelets. Criminologist X
Speaker 1: cop you've got opinions on law and order. I just
Speaker 1: struggle to understand why we don't utilize ankle bracelets. And
Speaker 1: I just think it's such a simple process that if
Speaker 1: the victim and the perpetrator, if the perpetrator comes within
Speaker 1: five climbers, ten klombs, whatever radius you want to set,
Speaker 1: and the victim is notified that person is in the area,
Speaker 1: it might give them some peace, It might give them
Speaker 1: some comfort. During COVID, the crazy management of that, we
Speaker 1: managed to track where everyone went in the country. Get
Speaker 1: your thoughts. Why can't we adopt ankle bracelets? Am I
Speaker 1: looking at it too simplistically?
Speaker 2: No, you're not surprisingly. No, Yeah, you're right about being
Speaker 2: a serious issue, but it's just my sense of humor.
Speaker 1: You were never funny. That's why that's why your career ended.
Speaker 1: You've got thrown off a roof. Do you reflect on
Speaker 1: why that person threw you off the roof?
Speaker 2: No, but I will on the way home. Ankle bracelets.
Speaker 2: There's a couple of things. And as we spoke about
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago at Rainbow Lodge, it's amazing.
Speaker 2: How as to former police, you know, I've seeing the
Speaker 2: pit of humanity, how your views change about life and
Speaker 2: about crime and things like that. And it would be
Speaker 2: tragic if our views on life and crime didn't change.
Speaker 2: That's what individuals are So ankle bracelets. I won't give
Speaker 2: the exact number because I know exactly how many there
Speaker 2: are in New South Wales, but we're not talking about hundreds. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: ankle bracelets are used for medium to high risk offenders
Speaker 2: who have been identified for violent domestic violence. So there's
Speaker 2: a couple of things. There are going to be offenders
Speaker 2: like that bloke in Queensland and I won't mention his
Speaker 2: name who, for whatever reason, you will never be able
Speaker 2: to prevent from murdering Hannah and the children. There are
Speaker 2: just recouncilor and says you would well know that's what
Speaker 2: jail's for, thank god. But no matter if she was
Speaker 2: wearing an ankle bracelet. Having read the coronial report, I
Speaker 2: don't believe that that would have prevented him ended up
Speaker 2: killing her. If not, then then then.
Speaker 1: Later could I just pose that there what say he
Speaker 1: had the ankle bracelet. He's been charged with offences and
Speaker 1: very strict conditions that if he comes within five kilometer
Speaker 1: radius and he breaches those conditions, And I hate mandatory sentencing,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure you're of the same view. Every case
Speaker 1: needs to be adjudicated, but there will be a sentence.
Speaker 1: And then he gets out and he's got that bracelet
Speaker 1: on again. If the bracelet gets cut off, he's back
Speaker 1: in jail. If he comes within five kilometers of her
Speaker 1: and it's not justifiable as in a pure accident, he
Speaker 1: goes back to jail. Couldn't that circumvent it?
Speaker 2: Yes, it could. The thing that people have a look
Speaker 2: of ankle bracelets is that as you and I know
Speaker 2: that they get cut off. Secondly, the offender, they will
Speaker 2: let the battery run out. It has to be charged.
Speaker 2: It's just like a mobile phone. It has to be charged,
Speaker 2: and the battery has to be recharged every I don't
Speaker 2: know how many hours it is, but it has to
Speaker 2: be rech out. So if the offender lets it run
Speaker 2: out or run down, even accidentally, and I know this
Speaker 2: has happen, been in the past, then they can't be
Speaker 2: tracked because there's no signal being given out.
Speaker 1: But okay, and if that's the case, he's breached it
Speaker 1: again and he gets charged.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The other thing that they do, and I'll answer
Speaker 2: the point exactly in the minute, they wrap it in
Speaker 2: ol foil so they can't be tracked, or they'll put
Speaker 2: it in another vehicle and that someone will drive out
Speaker 2: to Whoopwarp where they'll lose its signal. So if you
Speaker 2: look at the East Coast of Australia, most of the
Speaker 2: tracking is on the East Coast of Australia because there's
Speaker 2: a lot of mobile phone towers. But if you went inland,
Speaker 2: it'd be totally different. So you're right. So if he
Speaker 2: had breached that for sure, arrest him, lock him up
Speaker 2: and you know, just throw away the key. A surprising thing.
Speaker 2: And I actually know a man and I won't say
Speaker 2: who it is that actually wears one and it's not
Speaker 2: for as crimes of violence, but nothing for domestic arguments.
Speaker 2: And he was saying that his partner when he goes
Speaker 2: within a buffer zone wherever that he is, and it
Speaker 2: goes off and she goes off with her to let
Speaker 2: her know. It actually causes her a bit of anxiety
Speaker 2: because she knows that he is in close proximity, whether
Speaker 2: it be coincidental or not, But she also draws strength
Speaker 2: from that knowing that there is a degree of a
Speaker 2: buffer zone there. But the problem is that there are
Speaker 2: only x amount and there's lack of corrective services staff
Speaker 2: to be able to honor the ankle bracelets you would need.
Speaker 2: And I don't crape on this figure, but I think
Speaker 2: there was last year this year twenty one thousand breaches
Speaker 2: of a ABO. Even if you had ten thousand ankle bracelets,
Speaker 2: it's not going to be enough and you need people
Speaker 2: to man that. But I totally agree, you know, any
Speaker 2: damage to the ankle bracelet, cutting it off, whatever, they
Speaker 2: should have a mandatory sentence. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Look, I know it comes down the resourcing, but yeah,
Speaker 1: and finances, fiscal everything comes into play. But to me,
Speaker 1: I know, if someone was stalking me and someone was
Speaker 1: going to kill me, and that person's got a bracelet
Speaker 1: on and I've got a monitor that lets me know
Speaker 1: if that person's come, that would give me a peace
Speaker 1: of mind. And if it did go off, he's not
Speaker 1: going to get me unprepared. So I just I think technology,
Speaker 1: we've got to we've got to embrace it. And I
Speaker 1: get frustrated because I saw when we're told things can't
Speaker 1: be done during COVID, that poor bloke that went and
Speaker 1: tried to buy a barbecue tracked all around Sydney. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's possible. So I get I'm starting to sound like
Speaker 1: you on Q and A. How stupid do you have
Speaker 1: to be? Sorry, I'm getting whipped up, but it's true. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's something there that we've really got to. Okay,
Speaker 1: how do we address it. We've talked in part one
Speaker 1: about helping men retrain or focus on development so they
Speaker 1: don't go down that path, but short term do that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you don't get a bracelet first time. Some it's
Speaker 1: an offence, but then it escalates second defense. Bad luck, buddy,
Speaker 1: you're wearing this bracelet. I don't care if it embarrasses
Speaker 1: you when you're at the beach.
Speaker 2: Just a good point, because that's a really good point
Speaker 2: because if the Bosco News Bureau Crime Statistics Research put
Speaker 2: out a report earlier this year on its effectiveness, and
Speaker 2: they are effective. And one of the things that said,
Speaker 2: which Nely choked on the weedis was that men are
Speaker 2: worried about being stigmatized, and I thought, well, since when
Speaker 2: has it ever been about the men being signatized? Who cares? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I think so, And let's make a bright
Speaker 1: orange right person, it's really embarrassed. Yeah, but anyway, just
Speaker 1: a thought. Juvenile crime it's yeah, it's in the media.
Speaker 1: Got hold of that. That's a topic of discussion. But
Speaker 1: that does really appear that there's a lot of problems
Speaker 1: going on with juvenile crime. Criminologist x cop, university lecturer
Speaker 1: and all round good guy. Sorry, just check him the notes.
Speaker 1: How can we address juvenile crime?
Speaker 2: So, as a father of four teenage children.
Speaker 1: Ankle bracelets.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, not one, but two and went around their neck.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 2: Look, juvenile crime it always seems to be out of control.
Speaker 2: Whether that's fact or whether it's or media, it's hard
Speaker 2: to know. Certainly lowering the in Queensland to having the
Speaker 2: age it was criminal responsibility at ten. I think it's
Speaker 2: just appalling. I just think that ten is just is.
Speaker 1: That what they're looking at?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, if it's not already law.
Speaker 1: Okay, explain that to the listener.
Speaker 2: What that So that means that if So generally speaking,
Speaker 2: when a person commits a crime, as we know that
Speaker 2: they have the sufficient maturity and intellect to note what
Speaker 2: they're doing is wrong. Exceptional circumstances, someone suffering mental health
Speaker 2: issues for example. So if I am sixteen and I
Speaker 2: go out and covores an arsenal murder someone, then the
Speaker 2: law says that I have the mental capacity to understand
Speaker 2: the motive and the intent and the consequences of my actions.
Speaker 2: So what Queensland has done has the age of criminal
Speaker 2: responsibility has been lowered from fourteen to ten. So that
Speaker 2: means that a person who is fourteen, if they go
Speaker 2: out and steal a car or do shoplifting, the law
Speaker 2: says that they know it fourteen the difference between right
Speaker 2: and wrong. They've got a moral compass. But now in
Speaker 2: Queensland it's been lowered to ten. Now, to my mind,
Speaker 2: as a father of fourteen aged children, a ten year
Speaker 2: old child does not have the developmental capacity or maturity
Speaker 2: to understand and the consequences of their action. Yes, they
Speaker 2: might know it's wrong to steal or to break in
Speaker 2: into a car or steal a car, but do they
Speaker 2: understand you know, the consequences that might flow from that.
Speaker 2: So what they're saying is that someone who is ten
Speaker 2: should be held fully responsible to the law and punished
Speaker 2: by the law because they know what they're doing is
Speaker 2: not only wrong, but it has an impact on society,
Speaker 2: which I think is.
Speaker 1: Just that's it doesn't seem well, it doesn't sit well
Speaker 1: with me, and even if there is a problem, you're
Speaker 1: not fixing it by yeah. So you're looking at the
Speaker 1: ten year old Yeah, that's yeah, and you don't comprehend
Speaker 1: the consequences of your actions age.
Speaker 2: And just actually taking that similar point. So we talk
Speaker 2: about intergenerational trauma and violence and domestic violence. So I
Speaker 2: was speaking to a woman a few weeks ago who
Speaker 2: was in who was in a violent relationship and has
Speaker 2: left her ten year seven Yeah, ten year old son
Speaker 2: during the relationship started belting the seven year old sister. Now,
Speaker 2: she made the valid point, and it's true that he
Speaker 2: didn't he didn't know why he was doing it. He
Speaker 2: was mimicking his father's behavior. He knew it was wrong,
Speaker 2: but he didn't know he didn't have the mental maturity
Speaker 2: COMPREHENDI yeah, to know that it was wrong. And now
Speaker 2: she's worried that he'll end up like her father. So
Speaker 2: when we talk about criminal responsibility and mimicking behavior, no
Speaker 2: one at the age of ten you can can fully comprehend,
Speaker 2: as you rightly say, the consequences so well.
Speaker 1: Partly Queensland's move, it sounds like a political move. We're
Speaker 1: getting tough with lower the age of the criminal responsibility
Speaker 1: custody with kids. I have a bad, a real problem
Speaker 1: problem with that. And I know they're the form of
Speaker 1: the views, but I really have a problem. A diversion
Speaker 1: there programs I think is much better, much better for
Speaker 1: a child. Your thoughts on that, once you put them
Speaker 1: in the system, it says so not just their self esteem,
Speaker 1: but then the people they're looking up to the older
Speaker 1: boys in the system and look at them, they're causing problems.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm going to come out and be a
Speaker 1: real criminal.
Speaker 2: If you'd asked me that when I was like Mount
Speaker 2: drew It in the nineteen eighties, I wouldn't have cared less.
Speaker 2: I would have gone. We had a saying, and I'm
Speaker 2: almost a shame I tell the kids in classes. Kids,
Speaker 2: almost a shame to say. But when I went to
Speaker 2: Mount drew It in nineteen eighty one, which is pretty
Speaker 2: well placed they said we never went We had a
Speaker 2: saying we never went to work, we went to war,
Speaker 2: and straight away the mindset at the time. Yeah, And
Speaker 2: if you'd said to me about a ten year old
Speaker 2: child at men drew It or Saint Mary's or Blacktown
Speaker 2: or Penwuth, where I spent most of my career, I
Speaker 2: wouldn't have cared less. But now it's maybe because you're
Speaker 2: a parent and you look back and you go, wow,
Speaker 2: you know the things I should have done or could
Speaker 2: have done. But I think that you're right putting children. Look,
Speaker 2: it's a fine line.
Speaker 1: I understand the society's got to be protective.
Speaker 2: I understand that, yeah, and we also understand that the
Speaker 2: kids have to be held responsible. There's no doubt about
Speaker 2: that whatsoever. But you're right about it's being a political
Speaker 2: issue about locking up children when you rightly say that
Speaker 2: they're versionary programs in place. Now, I think and I
Speaker 2: don't I didn't look at this, but when I was
Speaker 2: at the Drug Summit, there was a figure quoted, and
Speaker 2: I don't quote me on this, if I'm going to
Speaker 2: say publicly, I think that for every one dollar spent
Speaker 2: on rehabilitation, it saves the government something like five dollars
Speaker 2: or seven dollars. But the problem is that the governments
Speaker 2: don't because we mentioned political cycle, they don't say a
Speaker 2: short term result from that. But it needs to be
Speaker 2: a long term investment. I think any parent who raises
Speaker 2: children know it's a challenging time. But you're right. Kids
Speaker 2: have to be held response for their actions. And just
Speaker 2: going back to the point I made earlier about when
Speaker 2: I speak to the children at school and at UNI
Speaker 2: about domestic violence, take the word domestic out of it.
Speaker 2: Boys need to be told that you just cannot hit women.
Speaker 2: It's just not on, no, and you have to be blunt.
Speaker 2: And having twin sons who are eighteen, they are different
Speaker 2: from their sisters, and I think boys have to be
Speaker 2: told blunt, you just cannot bloody well do it. It's
Speaker 2: just not on It's just under no circumstances cannot be done.
Speaker 2: And boys, I think are hard wired and I could
Speaker 2: be wrong, differently from women. It needs to be a
Speaker 2: clean message. And even when you and Guess came back
Speaker 2: to the earlier point about moving the word domestic from
Speaker 2: the violence, when you talk to the kids at school
Speaker 2: and at UNI, even the word sexual violence, they focus
Speaker 2: on the word sexual rather than the violence. But we
Speaker 2: know why they call it sexual violence because that's the
Speaker 2: way that the Crimes Act defines it and it adds
Speaker 2: an extra layer of you know, depravity to the So
Speaker 2: again with the boys, it doesn't matter how young they are,
Speaker 2: you know, you know, there need to be boundaries. They
Speaker 2: need to be told you just cannot hit women under
Speaker 2: any circumstances.
Speaker 1: Well, the role model is so important in yeah, a
Speaker 1: young young boy's life, and yeah, you've got to set
Speaker 1: the standards. But that's the type of thing that we're
Speaker 1: looking at with diversionary role models. Role models are critical.
Speaker 1: The amount of people I have sitting in here whose
Speaker 1: life has gone off track, has turned their life around
Speaker 1: because of a good role model, or you say, where
Speaker 1: it go wrong, they had no one steering them in
Speaker 1: the direction I think the figures are And again don't
Speaker 1: quote me on it might have even come out in
Speaker 1: one of these speeches at Rainbow Lodge. To keep an
Speaker 1: adult person in custody over twelve months is one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand, juvenile is two hundred and fifty thousand.
Speaker 1: That's a shitload of money that could set up some
Speaker 1: really good programs. People who have got the lived experience,
Speaker 1: people who have gone in the dark side or done
Speaker 1: the bad things and come out and having these kids
Speaker 1: look up to them and tell them this is not
Speaker 1: the goal. You can get the trade. You can be
Speaker 1: part of society and self esteem. Self esteem is what
Speaker 1: they see with a lot of kids that go off track.
Speaker 1: They haven't got a good self esteem because of the
Speaker 1: environment they've grown up, even education. How many times and
Speaker 1: you would have seen it in the cops when you've
Speaker 1: got some poor blake you're charging with an the fence
Speaker 1: and he's too embarrassed because he can't read all right,
Speaker 1: yeah and yeah, things like that, and so they lash out.
Speaker 1: They lash out at school because they're having trouble reading
Speaker 1: and writing, so they deflect from it by getting into
Speaker 1: trouble and send out of the class.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep, exactly right. Literacy is amazing. You wouldn't think
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty five or twenty twenty four to twenty
Speaker 2: five that would actually be an issue at all. But
Speaker 2: it is surprising just talking about people going off track.
Speaker 2: It's interesting that if you took that bloke who was
Speaker 2: at Rainbow Lodge who gave that talk, he would be
Speaker 2: a fantastic role model because of his life he is outstanding.
Speaker 2: So he obviously speed off the track and did whatever
Speaker 2: he did and now he's a role model. So if
Speaker 2: a person, a child is raised in an environment of
Speaker 2: violence as domestic violence, and even if they come out
Speaker 2: of that, if they're being exposed to it long enough
Speaker 2: as a child and they're brought out of it, the
Speaker 2: slightest stress or trigger in their life after that event
Speaker 2: could easily spear them off the rails into a life
Speaker 2: of crime or drugs and alcohol and violence. So when
Speaker 2: we're talking about the formative years of children, it is
Speaker 2: really so important that even if they are removed from
Speaker 2: that environment, the damage is saying because once you've seen
Speaker 2: domestic violence or violence, you can't undo it. You can't
Speaker 2: undo it. And those poor kids who see it, who
Speaker 2: are terrified by it, it stays with them for the
Speaker 2: rest of their life.
Speaker 1: Got to break the cycle and the things that we
Speaker 1: talk about. It's about getting smart on crime, not tough
Speaker 1: on crime. And you know, when you speak to victims
Speaker 1: and victims that have been through the ring and I've
Speaker 1: lost loved ones, if you reduce crime, you reduce victims.
Speaker 1: So that pub talk, Oh you're gone soft. You going
Speaker 1: soft non crime. If you reduce crime, you reduce victims.
Speaker 1: That's a smart way of approaching it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and not only that, like crimes coming down in
Speaker 2: society for decades, and of course of the media cycle.
Speaker 2: You know, the media pick up on it. And I
Speaker 2: asked the studness in class, is crime going up or down?
Speaker 2: And they always say crimes going up? But in actual
Speaker 2: fact it's coming down. Even though it's coming down, it's
Speaker 2: still not acceptable. But you know the Yeah, the impact
Speaker 2: and the cycle of violence and how kids are speared
Speaker 2: into it. But it is, you know, you and I
Speaker 2: and many people you know, we hear the rhetoric. And
Speaker 2: I used to believe it tough on crime.
Speaker 1: I used to believe I know what you're saying. So
Speaker 1: I'm just not owning up to it. But I know
Speaker 1: how ignorant you were early in your police career. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's stop them away the key.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like having decriminalization of cannabis. So I was at
Speaker 2: the drug Summit. I am surprisingly for it to a point.
Speaker 2: I mean a massive fan of pill testing. I think
Speaker 2: that it should be a health issue. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 2: For example, someone at a music festival If they've got
Speaker 2: one tablet for that'say, okay, But if they've got five
Speaker 2: or ten, obviously that's going to be a supply issue.
Speaker 2: And I'm not certainly not saying that, you know, drugs
Speaker 2: should be allowed to come into the country freely. No way,
Speaker 2: It's absolutely no way. But I think that the reality
Speaker 2: is that there will be a portion those we know
Speaker 2: people that always use drugs, and if that can be
Speaker 2: managed from a health perspective, that's great. I actually more
Speaker 2: worry about the mental health impact of cannabis for schizophrenia
Speaker 2: than I actually do about any other crime aspect of it.
Speaker 2: And the notion that you know, cannabis leads to harder
Speaker 2: crime that leads that doorway open. It's just it's an
Speaker 2: urban myth. It doesn't. It just doesn't. It doesn't do that.
Speaker 1: But you're raising the issue of the pill testing, and
Speaker 1: I know, if any teenagers I know are going to
Speaker 1: a concert, I'd prefer to have that than not have
Speaker 1: that because of the tragedies that can happen. Okay, we've
Speaker 1: talked about crime, let's talk about policing. Contemporary policing. Why
Speaker 1: not just in New South Wales. I think it's across
Speaker 1: the country, and I think it's overseas as well. We're
Speaker 1: having trouble attracting people to policing. What what do you
Speaker 1: think that's about. What's your sense of that.
Speaker 2: I think, first of all, I just think it's part
Speaker 2: of it is just the nature of the the what's
Speaker 2: the word I'm looking for, the temporary nature of employment
Speaker 2: now that people go from job to job to job
Speaker 2: to job.
Speaker 1: Just before policing was a vocation.
Speaker 2: Yes, it was a vocation, it was a career. I
Speaker 2: also think that because of the fear of crime, so
Speaker 2: people fear crime more than the reality of crime. It's
Speaker 2: because people fee crime. People would never walk down a
Speaker 2: dark alley, but in actual fact, probably nothing will ever
Speaker 2: happen to you.
Speaker 1: So the fear of crime is worse than the reality
Speaker 1: of crime.
Speaker 2: So when you talk to parents, and when I talk
Speaker 2: to students, and I talk to you thousands over the years, Ah,
Speaker 2: the policing is dangerous. But I say, policing is not
Speaker 2: that dangerous. It's it is, but you don't get thrown
Speaker 2: in at the deep end. You know, you're trained, you're
Speaker 2: not left on your own devices. So that notion that
Speaker 2: crime is out of control, I don't think really attracts
Speaker 2: individuals to the to the organization. I also think that
Speaker 2: adverse publicity doesn't really really help. One can go into
Speaker 2: whether there's good or bad leadership in a police organization.
Speaker 1: One could vent.
Speaker 2: Bloody. One could go into whether it's good or bad
Speaker 2: leadership in the organization which in there and reflects upon
Speaker 2: people's attitudes whether they want to go in. I also
Speaker 2: think that emerging economies, you know, like the gig economy,
Speaker 2: it is not emerging, it's already here and renewables. But
Speaker 2: I just think that I don't I think the police
Speaker 2: or take that thing at Kuma just tragic, that just
Speaker 2: beyond comprehension. That does not do anything to attract people
Speaker 2: to the police.
Speaker 1: Well, that one event, and we're talking about one event,
Speaker 1: that's right, the elderly lady that was a taste and
Speaker 1: die as a result. And I think it's a matter
Speaker 1: that's just come before the court and there was a verdict.
Speaker 1: So we won't go into the exactly what happened because
Speaker 1: I don't think the sentencings occurred at this stage. But
Speaker 1: I look at incidents, and you've looked at a lot
Speaker 1: of critical incidence. I oversaw a lot of critical incidents,
Speaker 1: and I think there needs to be better training for police. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I won't break it down because it's quite frightening when
Speaker 1: you talk about how often you get to use your
Speaker 1: weapon and training and all that. But surely with the
Speaker 1: type of job that we're doing, or we were are
Speaker 1: doing as police officers, more money should be put in
Speaker 1: the training you want. You want quality over quantity.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And I was talking to Darren Bennett, yeah
Speaker 2: the other a few weeks ago actually, and he was saying,
Speaker 2: you know, it's the people coming through the door. If
Speaker 2: you get the right people coming through the door, then
Speaker 2: the organizational issues aren't as as as big. Now, that's
Speaker 2: that's an obvious statement to make. But the point you
Speaker 2: made earlier about people getting accepted and then those being rejected,
Speaker 2: and when there's a shortage then bringing those other people
Speaker 2: back in, it doesn't that's not a consistent benchmark. And
Speaker 2: whilst it might in the short term politically seem palatable
Speaker 2: for the electorate and for the commissioner or whoever it is,
Speaker 2: down the track, when the politicians and the commissioner go,
Speaker 2: then the organizations left with this legacy of them trying
Speaker 2: to mold bad individual not bad individual less suitable individuals
Speaker 2: into something that the organization really does want.
Speaker 1: So and like even in the probo, we have that
Speaker 1: probationary period, and you know, and I know there's people
Speaker 1: there that should not be police officers. You can you
Speaker 1: can tell it a mile away. Why do they call
Speaker 1: a probationary period and they get through?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. And I
Speaker 2: think this comes also down to the industry relations laws,
Speaker 2: and the onus is upon the organization to prove that
Speaker 2: Vince Hurley was incompetent and Vin Turley was very incompetent.
Speaker 1: That's why you were That's why you were flowing thrown
Speaker 1: off the roof, and then you didn't have to go
Speaker 1: through in dustrial relationship. Sorry, it's tragic and I shouldn't
Speaker 1: be laughing at it. Did you scream on the way down?
Speaker 2: Actually? To be honest, I was on the ground and
Speaker 2: I just am I allowed to swear. It's on the
Speaker 2: ground on it and I fractured my left leg and
Speaker 2: my skull and I dissipated my shoulder and I'm lying
Speaker 2: on the ground and I'm thinking, oh, this is fucked,
Speaker 2: this is fucked, this is not this is fun. I'm
Speaker 2: getting to old to chase pea half my age. But yeah,
Speaker 2: so I was not in a good place. But anyway,
Speaker 2: we're not laughing at you.
Speaker 1: We're laughing at We're full support and we're just trying
Speaker 1: to say, wow, we can't get police and you are discussing,
Speaker 1: well when I got praying off the roof. Look, I
Speaker 1: love it as a career. I know you enjoyed your
Speaker 1: time there. I enjoyed that. It saddens me that they're
Speaker 1: struggling to get resources. Pay increase. Yeah, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot of areas that need money going into it. What
Speaker 1: worries me that will attract people just for the money.
Speaker 1: And I like to work with people. When I was
Speaker 1: in the cops, I like to work with people that
Speaker 1: weren't focused on promotion, weren't focused on how much over
Speaker 1: time I can get. We're focused on they were passionate
Speaker 1: about their job. That's the only thing I worry about.
Speaker 1: With this huge pay increase that New South Wales Police
Speaker 1: have got, You're going to have people that stay in
Speaker 1: there that's not really interested in policing. They're just taking
Speaker 1: the dollar or encouraging people to go there that are
Speaker 1: not really interested in policing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, you're right, You're right. I was staggered with
Speaker 2: the pay increase. I couldn't believe. I thought I misheard
Speaker 2: it when I first read. I did, but I would
Speaker 2: have walked in on my crutch as I said, no, no,
Speaker 2: but I couldn't believe it, Like that's a phenomenal increase.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that. I mean we were poorly paid,
Speaker 2: you know, in the eighties, but you never joined, as
Speaker 2: you rightly so for that particular reason. But you know
Speaker 2: I would. I would, Yeah, probably an unsurprising comment. I
Speaker 2: would rather see that money going to drug and alcohol
Speaker 2: counseling or mental health, automestic violence, because if you can
Speaker 2: prevent that, as we know, then be less police. I went,
Speaker 2: as I said in the eighties, I went with a
Speaker 2: bloke name of Chris Clark Shadow and we're working at
Speaker 2: Mount to twenty domestics in one night. Now, admittedly it
Speaker 2: was in the nineteen eighties and you just churned through them,
Speaker 2: but that you know that that massive increase in wage.
Speaker 2: I think you know, as we said earlier, if that
Speaker 2: could be put into diversionary programs or something like that,
Speaker 2: it would have to you wouldn't see an immediate thing.
Speaker 2: But if we're talking about generational change or even a decade,
Speaker 2: it would have to be more beneficial because people will
Speaker 2: coming to the organization, as you say, they'll joint X
Speaker 2: amount of time and then leave. But if that money
Speaker 2: was put into drug and rehab and you get better
Speaker 2: role models, then it would have a better impact on society.
Speaker 1: I like to see police people want to do it
Speaker 1: because they're inspired by working with those people. You would
Speaker 1: have had people you looked up to. I looked up
Speaker 1: to people, and I'm just thinking, I want to try
Speaker 1: to emulate what they've achieved in their career and the
Speaker 1: type of people they are. I think that's so important
Speaker 1: that in policing, and I just yeah, I've been away
Speaker 1: from it a long time too, so I'm mainly looking
Speaker 1: from the outside. But it just saddens me that people
Speaker 1: aren't putting their hands up because I still reckon it's
Speaker 1: the world's greatest job. That's in saying many different things
Speaker 1: and the rewards that you can get from it, and
Speaker 1: it's a difficult job now, Like I understand it's difficult
Speaker 1: now because the exposure and the criticism if someone does
Speaker 1: something wrong, they're exposed publicly because we make mistakes and
Speaker 1: you just you learn from your mistake and move on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the leadership. I don't like the we've got
Speaker 1: the commissioner now, Karen where I just get the sense
Speaker 1: that she's not being supported by her own organization and
Speaker 1: that that troubles me because I know the internal politics
Speaker 1: in the in the cops, how they climb over each other,
Speaker 1: and that saddens me because really, when you're out of
Speaker 1: the cops, you realize the public don't give who is
Speaker 1: no superintendent or who is this or who is that?
Speaker 1: They don't care. You think within the cops, everyone yes,
Speaker 1: who's going to be the next commissioner? People don't care,
Speaker 1: but they just want the police to do their job.
Speaker 1: On that, I often get asked about what makes a
Speaker 1: good police force, And the way I look at it,
Speaker 1: look at the police your public servantcy. You're there to
Speaker 1: serve the public. So when you talk satisfaction in regards
Speaker 1: to police, are they delivering what the community they're serving expects?
Speaker 1: Is that a good way of assessing that it is?
Speaker 2: It is? And I also think that that's an interesting
Speaker 2: point because so when we talk about confidence in policing,
Speaker 2: and how do you make sure that people are satisfied.
Speaker 2: First of all, when we're talking about, say, closing the
Speaker 2: gap every time, and I never thought of this at
Speaker 2: the time, it's easy to say now in hindsight, whatever
Speaker 2: you do with the First Nations people or someone from
Speaker 2: culturally diverse background, every time you deal with them and
Speaker 2: give them tend their needs, you're giving them what they
Speaker 2: want the expectation. That is part of closing the gap.
Speaker 2: So everyone has a responsibility to do that. But I
Speaker 2: also think that there will never be unfortunately enough people
Speaker 2: of First Nations or culturally diverse background in the police
Speaker 2: because it just doesn't attract individuals generally. And then even
Speaker 2: those minority groups are never going to be wrecking what
Speaker 2: I'm looking for. I'm not going to be represented because
Speaker 2: they just don't attract those individuals for whatever reason. So
Speaker 2: from the very beginning, I think there's always going to
Speaker 2: be a gap between what people expect from culturally diverse
Speaker 2: background or from First Nations and what the organization can deliver.
Speaker 2: But I also think that you're right, it's just you know,
Speaker 2: what would it's not even giving a level of service,
Speaker 2: it's just you know, informing someone or say, well, if
Speaker 2: that person was my mum, what would she expect?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is so simple, so simple way. I well,
Speaker 1: you would have heard me when I'm talking to detectives
Speaker 1: training detectives that treat the victims like you'd want your
Speaker 1: family to be treated. It's a simple concept.
Speaker 2: It is it is, yeah, exactly right. But I can
Speaker 2: also understand, and I'm not making excuses. I can also
Speaker 2: understand that you know when you went to a domestic
Speaker 2: and I would be ashamed now to think how many
Speaker 2: times you know, and as a generation, how I didn't
Speaker 2: meet the expectations of people. But even now, I think
Speaker 2: sometimes people overlook the fact that when a police officer
Speaker 2: goes and speaks to some a victim, they don't care
Speaker 2: if that police officer and they don't know it's just
Speaker 2: come from a cot death or a fatal motivaticle accident.
Speaker 2: So I'm speaking to you as a victim, and all
Speaker 2: you're worried about, and understandably so, is that Vince Earley
Speaker 2: gives you meets your needs. But sometimes expectations of what
Speaker 2: the police can do all hie and that the police
Speaker 2: can't meet it, or your expectations are not realistic. And
Speaker 2: you don't know that because you've never had anything to
Speaker 2: do with the police before. And Vincehurley comes to you
Speaker 2: at two o'clock in the morning and I'm fatigued because
Speaker 2: I've been out for ten hours driving around and then
Speaker 2: you go, well, he didn't seem very interested. So I
Speaker 2: can understand from that perspective. And that's not an excuse,
Speaker 2: it's just human nature. But you're right that if you
Speaker 2: police were just more compassionate, and probably some of them aren't.
Speaker 2: But it's going back to the very first question of it.
Speaker 2: I think the very beginning, you know, what is the expectation,
Speaker 2: what is the role of the police in society? And
Speaker 2: I said, you know, it's to be a referee, but
Speaker 2: it's to have a degree of compassion at the same time.
Speaker 2: But you know, I think that you know, when I
Speaker 2: joined and when you joined, it was a different mindset
Speaker 2: to what it is now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's definitely definitely changed, but I think the core
Speaker 1: values need to stay stay with it because otherwise it
Speaker 1: becomes problematic. And because as you identified that people have
Speaker 1: assured the career they go in five years of police,
Speaker 1: they walk around, go to the next next thing. You
Speaker 1: want to attract the people that are really passionate about
Speaker 1: their job, and it doesn't matter which it could be
Speaker 1: all I don't want to encourage them too much, but
Speaker 1: they do do an important rob job. Passionate highway patrol officers.
Speaker 1: But you've met them and they're as passionate as you
Speaker 1: and I were as detectives doing what they do.
Speaker 2: You need that, Yeah, And I think actually that's a
Speaker 2: good point. When you think about the people that have
Speaker 2: a contact with the police. There's only for four groups offenders, victims, witnesses,
Speaker 2: and those pulled over by the highway patrol, and they
Speaker 2: are the largest percentage. So the straight away, the stereotypical
Speaker 2: or the mindset, well I got pulled over by the
Speaker 2: highway patrol. They're representative of the rest of the police.
Speaker 2: I mean, people will always if I want to join
Speaker 2: the police, they will want to join the police. But
Speaker 2: generally speaking, everyone's concept of what the police are is,
Speaker 2: you know, is amplified by the highway patrol or by
Speaker 2: the media.
Speaker 1: That's that's their exposure. Speaking of media, the role of
Speaker 1: media in policing, what's your take on that look looking
Speaker 1: from an outside this point of view, Now, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it's.
Speaker 2: Good and bad. I can only I can honestly tell
Speaker 2: you Gary, if social media was around when I was
Speaker 2: in the police, I would have been sacked. I would
Speaker 2: have been absolutely sacked. But we're looking at it retrospectively
Speaker 2: now and people coming into the organization would be more
Speaker 2: tact sevy tech sevy and would be aware of, you know,
Speaker 2: the media around about around policing.
Speaker 1: What was questioned again about media and policing and the
Speaker 1: relationship between the media and the police and the changing
Speaker 1: landscape with social media.
Speaker 2: So I think that when I've given interviews on TV
Speaker 2: or whatever, they always say to me before we start,
Speaker 2: or we wants a ten second grab, and that's what
Speaker 2: they concentrate on. And they'll take words that Vince Early
Speaker 2: says either out of context and they'll use that or
Speaker 2: they'll keep it as is.
Speaker 1: So the media, when you were telling the politicians they
Speaker 1: are absolute jokes. That was taken out of context.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe not that way. So I'm so proud to
Speaker 2: say that I've interrupted, but that that's a good example
Speaker 2: because that whole clip was compressed. I said more than that,
Speaker 2: and I went on to actually talk more about those
Speaker 2: particular issues, but that was compressed for social media. That's
Speaker 2: a grab, that's yeah, and that's a grab that they want. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's been of benefit for a whole host of NGOs.
Speaker 2: But I also think that the media and everyone says this,
Speaker 2: and it's true, they have a responsibility to portray both sides.
Speaker 2: Because one of the questions I asked in an assignment
Speaker 2: is that is it true something along the lines off
Speaker 2: to the students, is it true that the media portrayed
Speaker 2: police in a good light or bad light? And is
Speaker 2: it necessary to do that? And they really come up
Speaker 2: with interesting answers, because yes, police I have to be
Speaker 2: held accountable for what they do. Social media is fantastic that,
Speaker 2: but it's also can be a prejudicial to the police.
Speaker 2: It can also be prejudicial against the police as well.
Speaker 2: So social media is just unwieldy beast. And I'm not
Speaker 2: on social media at all for that reason because it
Speaker 2: just doesn't never raise.
Speaker 1: But it is a changing landscape and the media and
Speaker 1: the police had a very close relationship. When we're in
Speaker 1: police and the media, we're getting the information leaked to them,
Speaker 1: and that it was I had an issue and I
Speaker 1: still have an issue that quite often it's a positive
Speaker 1: news story for the police. There's certain journalists that would
Speaker 1: beholding to the police, giving them leaks of information, and
Speaker 1: it frustrates me stories that I know, investigations. I know
Speaker 1: the whim toural matter has played out so devastatingly in
Speaker 1: the public for so many different people, and it's been misinformation.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a responsibility on both sides. But
Speaker 1: I think the police need to be accountable for their actions.
Speaker 1: If there's criticism, well you've got to copy it. You
Speaker 1: get the compliments if you do something good. If you
Speaker 1: do something bad, you got to cop it. But I
Speaker 1: see the police just so risk adverse or getting criticized.
Speaker 1: Whereas and I reference Boarable. You know, the Commission of
Speaker 1: SCIPPIONI came up there and to the Bearable community. I've
Speaker 1: been trying for ten years to get a commission to
Speaker 1: come up there, and he came up there and he said,
Speaker 1: sorry to the community, we could have done better. That's
Speaker 1: acknowledging it. And that helped the community at that time.
Speaker 1: So that meant so much to them. Little things like that.
Speaker 1: And I don't know why the police don't put their
Speaker 1: hands up sometimes and just you know, okay, we could
Speaker 1: have done that better. Then you can move on from it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and not only that, the public, no, the public no,
Speaker 2: you know, just like you know, it's just like the
Speaker 2: politicians get asked a question and they give an answer,
Speaker 2: and they think that the answer might be smart or
Speaker 2: they don't address the question, but the rest of the
Speaker 2: world knows what the answer is. It's just like, you know,
Speaker 2: what's that saying that the emperor wears no clothes or something?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you know what is wrong? We've sort of
Speaker 2: putting up your hand and say, look, I'm sorry, we
Speaker 2: could have done better, but you're right. They are so
Speaker 2: risk adverse that it becomes almost boring and predictable. And
Speaker 2: even that notion of being risk averse doesn't attract people
Speaker 2: to the organization because it makes it the organization look
Speaker 2: so bland. What is wrong with getting up and say well,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, we got it wrong, because the punter at
Speaker 2: home knows that it's wrong, and they can say, I
Speaker 2: look at the politician or the police officer and or
Speaker 2: whoever it is, the commissioner and say, well, why don't
Speaker 2: you just say we all.
Speaker 1: Know it's what's wrong with it. I know we could
Speaker 1: manage it better, and I think they better get their
Speaker 1: act in order, because like with podcasts and all that,
Speaker 1: Teachers Pet and other podcasts and even the one that's
Speaker 1: running at the moment on William Tyrell Witness William Tyrell,
Speaker 1: it's not just towing the police line and making people
Speaker 1: calling the question what's gone on with an investigation? Gone
Speaker 1: are the days where And I'm not just talking New
Speaker 1: South far as police, I'm talking across the board. Law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies can control the media because it's gone. It
Speaker 1: used to be that way, but it's not no longer
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 2: And you know, and just an interesting point because the
Speaker 2: media policy or we used to know, you can only
Speaker 2: comment on facts and speeding and things like that. Even now,
Speaker 2: when you know, the police get up and they talk
Speaker 2: about a particular issue, it is very factual. But there
Speaker 2: is no like humanity or there's.
Speaker 1: No no personality. And I think when we look at
Speaker 1: how are you attracting police when everyone's just standing up
Speaker 1: and talking like a dummy, that sounds like a really
Speaker 1: good job. Inquiries are continuing, we expect an early arrest,
Speaker 1: like bring some life to it. Yeah, yeah, exactly right, mate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe that that attracts people, but yeah, I just
Speaker 1: so saddened by the fact that we're not getting people
Speaker 1: because the more people wandding it into the police, the
Speaker 1: higher the bar can be. And then one thing for
Speaker 1: credit to New South Wales Police, but it was about
Speaker 1: time and you know, having worked down the academy, the
Speaker 1: ludicrous situation where you had to pay to go to
Speaker 1: the academy and now at least the intake they're getting paid,
Speaker 1: that's going to attract a better group of people.
Speaker 2: You're right, and in fact an actual your spot on
Speaker 2: as well. I was going to make earlier and I
Speaker 2: forgot to mention it. You're right. Why would someone who
Speaker 2: wants to do a job go and have to pay
Speaker 2: hex fees to join an organization?
Speaker 1: It just it did not make sense.
Speaker 2: A tradee doesn't pay.
Speaker 1: I've had so many good people approach me and say
Speaker 1: I was going to join the police, but I couldn't
Speaker 1: afford because I've got young children that couldn't afford to
Speaker 1: pay the time down the academy, good people that you know,
Speaker 1: would have made excellent police officers, and we've lost them.
Speaker 2: Fear that that once they get to there, they fill
Speaker 2: their vacancies. Yeah, I think it will revert back. That's
Speaker 2: I know that's my that's I have no idea.
Speaker 1: We'll get you back on my catch killers and you
Speaker 1: can have one of your rants and raves in your
Speaker 1: twenty seven b and YouTube views because you've lost your
Speaker 1: shop modern policy and you mentioned AI. I look at AI.
Speaker 1: That will be a tool in investigation, like because you know,
Speaker 1: I imagine set it up right, there's breaking entwers, you're
Speaker 1: looking at methodology. You scan it within thirty seconds, it's
Speaker 1: come back. Okay, there's a similar break and enter. It's
Speaker 1: what thoughts on AI?
Speaker 2: Love it? Love it? A big early adopter of it.
Speaker 1: Easier when you're at a UNI student.
Speaker 2: Not that they would use AI no, of course, not
Speaker 2: act to use it.
Speaker 1: Well that I've wondered about that. But you've got to
Speaker 1: let them have axit. That's a resource like when we
Speaker 1: used to go to the library and borough a book.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a resource that's available. So it's got
Speaker 1: to be a leader in there. Imagine having people go
Speaker 1: through UNI and not know how to use it AI.
Speaker 2: Oh that's right, yeah, I mean I'll get backtrack in
Speaker 2: a minute. But I've got friends set on State and
Speaker 2: Commonwealth in interview panels for government jobs and one of
Speaker 2: the questions that many government like common work government jobs
Speaker 2: will ask if they get to an interview is what
Speaker 2: is your AI literacy skills?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, so that's a question.
Speaker 2: Yeah so And all the big like KPMG and Pross,
Speaker 2: water House Coopers and Ey they already they asked those
Speaker 2: questions about the students. What do you know about AI?
Speaker 2: And you know, what's your literacy skill? Can you tell
Speaker 2: between good and bad? But I think that it has
Speaker 2: benefits obviously, and it has disadvantages. The thing with AI
Speaker 2: is that it is because it's Microsoft. For example, open
Speaker 2: ais was initially owned by Elon Musk and he sold it,
Speaker 2: not sold it, but he works with Microsoft. That's why
Speaker 2: it's on our computers and Microsoft it's US based. So
Speaker 2: all the information is from the Northern Hemisphere. So if
Speaker 2: we type in something like some research on suicide by
Speaker 2: cop in Australia and it came back with information which
Speaker 2: was incorrect about Australia because it's all the Northern Hemisphere based.
Speaker 2: So that's the first thing that people have to understand
Speaker 2: is when they use it. Primarily it comes from scraping
Speaker 2: the web of all the Northern hemisphe few information, so
Speaker 2: that's the first. That's the first danger or pitfall of it.
Speaker 2: The second thing with AI, and it concerns me. There
Speaker 2: was a case in Ohio might have been last year,
Speaker 2: year before or anyway in the States where there was
Speaker 2: a police used AI to identify an offender. So they
Speaker 2: visually identified him, but they didn't know his name. Then
Speaker 2: they used AI and they put the name and the
Speaker 2: name was correct, and went to court and the matter.
Speaker 2: He was convicted for purchasing a handguard I think it was,
Speaker 2: and then it was actually thrown out later on it
Speaker 2: was challenged on the basis of AI that AI was
Speaker 2: used to identify the offender.
Speaker 1: So they they had the face. Did you say all
Speaker 1: that they had the face.
Speaker 2: They had the face, and they didn't know his name, okay,
Speaker 2: So they used AI to identify who he was and
Speaker 2: they AI identified him correctly as Gary Jubilan. So then
Speaker 2: they went around and arrested him. They didn't arrest him initially.
Speaker 2: It's a long, long judgment, and then they went around
Speaker 2: arrested Gary or this this handgun purchase. Gary pleaded guilty,
Speaker 2: went to court, and I can't remember what happened to
Speaker 2: him anyway, After you pleaded guilty. The defense Sorry, yeah,
Speaker 2: the defense appealed that decision based on AI, and he
Speaker 2: was Actually the conviction was quashed. The reason was quashed
Speaker 2: is that when you use AI, there's a thing called
Speaker 2: the black box, a notion or a concept that is
Speaker 2: used that when you type something into AI, you don't
Speaker 2: know how that answer is arrived at. So because you
Speaker 2: do not apply any critical analysis to that answer, you're
Speaker 2: accepting that answer to be one hundred percent correct based
Speaker 2: on what and you.
Speaker 1: So you're breaking that down in simplistic terms, you've got
Speaker 1: no reasonable suspicions exactly right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was no independent critical thought or analysis or
Speaker 2: independent identification of that individual, and it is set a
Speaker 2: precedent in the US.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's that's interesting. It's going to be interesting times
Speaker 1: on how that how that plays out. I think with AI,
Speaker 1: we're fortunate in that where we've got to at this
Speaker 1: point in time, we've learnt our skills. So if we
Speaker 1: use AI, we can sort of assess it pretty quickly
Speaker 1: because we know what I asked AI to do. A
Speaker 1: fact sheet on the murder. I could scam through and go, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what's needed in there. People who maybe don't
Speaker 1: develop those skills because AI is so readily, readily available.
Speaker 1: But I think it will be fascinating. Like technology in
Speaker 1: policing too. It's change. I think it's a harder gig
Speaker 1: being a crook these days and it was back back
Speaker 1: in our day because of all the advantages we've got.
Speaker 1: You did a paper or you did a talk on drones. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: and that interest man, I'll.
Speaker 2: Just go back to AI for sake. So when I
Speaker 2: gave a talk recently about AI and policing, someone in
Speaker 2: the audience said, well, you know, it's got to be
Speaker 2: good for identification of a weapon, for example, or clothing
Speaker 2: or a scar or a tattoo, And I said, yes,
Speaker 2: it has. It's placed there. But I also see it
Speaker 2: as a bit of a danger because you don't want
Speaker 2: the weapon to be so similar. You don't want it
Speaker 2: to mirror the weapon, because if you identify the incorrect weapon,
Speaker 2: for example, the matter could be tossed out. So AI
Speaker 2: can be that accurately cloned, is that it narrows the
Speaker 2: ability of the individual to identify it, like a lineup
Speaker 2: if everyone is too similar looking. Yes, it has to
Speaker 2: be similar, and you have to be able to justify
Speaker 2: the selection of the individual. But I think I worry
Speaker 2: about AI cloning things that are so identical that it's
Speaker 2: hard to say to it. It's hard. But also from
Speaker 2: the fact that if you get into the witness box,
Speaker 2: I say, Vince Hurley, now explain to us about AI.
Speaker 2: How did your ride at that decision? What did a
Speaker 2: I do? Fuck?
Speaker 1: I don't know how I am And you will be
Speaker 1: exploited that way, won't.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Defense barrass is going to jump straight in on that.
Speaker 2: So why would you introduce AI into a brief where
Speaker 2: you don't know much about it yourself, and but you
Speaker 2: know that it's going to cause controversy. So I think, yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1: Will it will evolve. But I remember when we're looking
Speaker 1: for a suspect. We've got a suspect on a case,
Speaker 1: and I go through the cops records and find out
Speaker 1: what we've got to have someone look for that, and
Speaker 1: then some young smart ass on the strike forces go, oh,
Speaker 1: this is where he lives. That's a picture of his
Speaker 1: house because they're on social media, and yeah, that how
Speaker 1: did this happen? But I would imagine it'll evolved like that.
Speaker 1: It will become it will become a time, it's something
Speaker 1: and I like to think law enforcement we stay ahead
Speaker 1: of the game if we can, so hopefully it plays
Speaker 1: out plays out that way. Winding back to the drive drones, Yeah, what.
Speaker 2: Look, I think drones are going to be as common,
Speaker 2: if not already common, as the car on the road.
Speaker 2: The thing that with drones is that now take carry
Speaker 2: wheland matters. That's finished, isn't it that? Yeah, that's well
Speaker 2: and done and dusted. So if memory serves me correctly
Speaker 2: at some stage, or aerial surveillance of him, Now, there
Speaker 2: was a person in a helicopter, in a poly helicopter
Speaker 2: which was out of view of things, and they surveiled
Speaker 2: and surveilance helicopter says, you know, it's quite common, and
Speaker 2: he had the visual image of that individual. The thing
Speaker 2: with drones is that it has a visual image of
Speaker 2: that individual. And I could be sitting at the aviation
Speaker 2: command at Bankstown managing it. But drones have a limited
Speaker 2: life span and they're not They are subject to bird strike,
Speaker 2: just like planes aren't. But also the wind can affect
Speaker 2: their their clarity on the particular target. Now just like Pollie,
Speaker 2: they can't the target can't necessarily see the drone, but
Speaker 2: it saves immense amount of manpower, and for crime scene
Speaker 2: as you would well know, but also for surveillance of individuals,
Speaker 2: for dropping off resources or something to an individual. The
Speaker 2: biggest thing I think the police are going to face
Speaker 2: is the CASSAR regulations, so they have to comply with
Speaker 2: the Civil Aviation Authority regulations about flying drones. And given
Speaker 2: the churn of police in the organization, everyone has to
Speaker 2: be well not everybody, but they have to be continually
Speaker 2: trained as a drone pilot to keep pace with that.
Speaker 2: So they use it. As you know on my brother's
Speaker 2: a surf Life Save up in Queensland, they have an
Speaker 2: individual who does that for sharks and the same thing
Speaker 2: can be applied to that. But it can certainly save
Speaker 2: a lot of staff and manpower with the use of drones.
Speaker 2: My only concern would be that if something happened to it,
Speaker 2: even though it's been back, if something happened to the drone,
Speaker 2: because it worth about a million dollars each once new
Speaker 2: so far as police have, if it was damaged or compromised,
Speaker 2: then you know the possible possible kind of nuity of
Speaker 2: evidence possible, yeah, possible conomuity of evidence.
Speaker 1: I was just interested in that because just before the
Speaker 1: end of my career on a and I won't mention
Speaker 1: the investigation with his high profile and looking for someone
Speaker 1: walking through the bush and seeing where they went, and
Speaker 1: we didn't have the capabilities to track this person. And
Speaker 1: I made I said, well, we've got those drones that
Speaker 1: get up there and look at crime scenes and all that.
Speaker 1: And I've done some work with media where they've got
Speaker 1: drones hovering over your head and we use that, use
Speaker 1: that drone, And I just thought that it just opened
Speaker 1: a whole new way of doing things police wise. Exciting
Speaker 1: time for policing. But we're not in it anymore. No,
Speaker 1: you got off the roof and I got frown under
Speaker 1: the bus a good way. Who would have thought our
Speaker 1: career has ended that way when lecturing detectives. But you
Speaker 1: know what I find and I've loved the chat, and
Speaker 1: I reckon, I'm going to get you back on because
Speaker 1: next time you snap, I'm going to get you straight
Speaker 1: back on the next day and find out what what
Speaker 1: set him off this time. But I like the fact
Speaker 1: that the way you look at crime and look at
Speaker 1: crime not just black and white good guys, bad guys.
Speaker 1: You're looking at it and making a difference educating people
Speaker 1: on it and the fact that you enjoyed your time
Speaker 1: in policing, because I really like sitting down with someone
Speaker 1: that it didn't end the way we thought it. We're
Speaker 1: even twisted it, but not better and twisted and can
Speaker 1: enjoy it. And you know, I can ask you the
Speaker 1: obvious question, would you recommend joining the police?
Speaker 2: Look, I loved it. Yeah I do. And even even
Speaker 2: as students at UNI say, I tell them it's a
Speaker 2: fantastic job.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: It's genuinely a great job. It's you see the best
Speaker 2: of humanity and you see the worst of humanity. Every
Speaker 2: day is different. I would, yeah, I would. Any of
Speaker 2: my children, I would recommend it. And when I speak
Speaker 2: at open days to you know, eight hundred parents, invariably
Speaker 2: I'll get some parents who put up their hand and say,
Speaker 2: would you recommend, And I say, yeah, I said absolutely,
Speaker 2: I would recommend it to my children. I'd recommend to anyone.
Speaker 2: And it is it's a great job.
Speaker 1: Okay, we're going to just cut that and that's going
Speaker 1: to be a neicement for policing. Policing in this country. Vince,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for coming on. And I'm not joking.
Speaker 1: We will get you back on because I'm sure you're
Speaker 1: going to stuff up somewhere and go off on a tangent.
Speaker 1: But the work that you do is very impressive and
Speaker 1: you're always good fun. When our paths crossed, it.
Speaker 2: Mate, I just want to say thanks so much for
Speaker 2: the opportunity. It's been fantastic and you know, yeah, look,
Speaker 2: it's been a wonderful journey for both of us. And
Speaker 2: you know, back in the mid nineteen nineties, who would
Speaker 2: have ever thought we would have ended up here. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just been great and thanks for an opportunity. It's
Speaker 2: been absolutely fantastic. Cheers, thanks, mate.
Speaker 1: Vince always bore the smile to my face, and I
Speaker 1: like his opinions on all things that law and order.
Speaker 1: He's got those streets smarts, he's got a sense of humor,
Speaker 1: he cares, he's passionate, and he's also a bit of
Speaker 1: an academic. So it was really good sitting down having
Speaker 1: a chat with doctor Vince Hurley. I think he's someone
Speaker 1: I might get back on here because I'm sure he's
Speaker 1: got some other opinions about all things law and order.