Kings Cross venues to pay off police?
- Author:
- Peter Hackney
- Posted:
- Thursday, 10 January 2013
Pubs, clubs and bars in Kings Cross could return to the days of paying off police if a joint proposal by the Kings Cross Liquor Accord and the Potts Point Partnership goes ahead.
The organisations, which represent more than 500 businesses, want to introduce a levy on businesses in the area to pay ‘off-duty’ police to work extra shifts in uniform under a user-pays system.
If adopted, the plan would see venues pay police for security, echoing plot lines of Channel Nine series Underbelly: The Golden Mile, which was based on Kings Cross police and nightclub machinations of the 1980s and ’90s.
While the new scheme would see payments occur openly, as opposed to the secret protection payments of the past, concerns have been raised about the potential for the scheme to foster favouritism and corruption.
Andrew Woodhouse, President of the Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage Conservation Society, said police impartiality would be eroded.
“This practice breeds corruption as ‘off-duty’ police become beholden to their employers,” he said.
“Conflict of interests arise for police moonlighting in two jobs simultaneously.”
Mr Woodhouse said the proposal – which has the backing of the Police Association of NSW – was “a backdoor, money-making scheme” being pushed by the union to give more police more work.
But the plan has received some high-profile support, with City of Sydney Councillor Angela Vithoulkas hailing it a commonsense approach to a festering problem.
“Something desperately needs to be done about the security problems in Kings Cross and if the local businesses want to contribute to the solution, then why not?” said Ms Vithoulkas.
“Safety is the overriding concern here, not anything else, and I am for anything that encourages a greater police presence.”
Last year, Ms Vithoulkas’ successful bid for Council included a platform of increasing police numbers in Kings Cross by paying ‘off-duty’ police to patrol the area, in much the same way as the Sydney Cricket Ground does during games.
It remains unclear how the Kings Cross Liquor Accord and Potts Point Partnership propose to avoid corruption, and ensure venues who don’t agree to pay police receive the same service as ones who do.
Neither organisation returned calls by press time.
Meanwhile, Fairfax newspapers reported that NSW Police Minister Michael Gallacher would consider the proposal as part of the Kings Cross Plan of Management and was “working through the exact details”.
Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore stopped short of supporting the plan, and encouraged licensed premises to focus on responsible service of alcohol to combat violence.
Ms Moore said the City of Sydney was investing $2.5 million in providing extra Precinct Ambassadors and Compliance Officers, expanding CCTV coverage, opening an information kiosk in Springfield Mall and other measures.
“The NSW Police Commissioner and local commanders are in the best position to decide if extra police officers would help,” she said.
Like this article? Register as a subscriber here. It's free! We'll keep you up to date with new stories on the site.
January 10th, 2013 @ 9:33 am
What a massive piece of rubbish this is Peter Hackney! Do you have any idea? You treat the integrity of our fantastic police service with no respect when you write pieces of rubbish like this.
More police are needed in Kings Cross. If licensed venues are happy to pool their financial resources into a fund that allows more police to be on the beat in the cross then this is obviously a good thing. Only a small number of lefties would think otherwise.
Listen to Scott Webber (police association president) when he explains it’s about police numbers and resources. Do you think he is screaming shortages for fun?
Open your eyes, get off your anti establishment stool and realise what a positive thing for the safety of our community this proposal would be.
You are kidding to think this will encorouge favoritism to lisenced venues! Do you get upset when the SCG and other stadiums have police presence paid for by the venues…. Nope.
If venues were against more numbers of police in their area, then I’d be worried. Venues are opening themselves up to more scrutiny by having more officers around along with financial penalties and breaches that police can issue to venue owners, licensees and staff.
So if venues are happy to open the doors to inspection, maybe it’s time the blame game stops at venues and people take a little more personal responsibility for their actions whilst our on a night and we all realise that drugs are a far bigger issue here than alcohol.
My two cents would be to have increased bottle shop prices to a minimum price to stop pre loading and to encorouge more drug detection by police with stiffer penalties.
Note; I’m am a licensed venue operator in the city precinct, not in Kings Cross.
January 10th, 2013 @ 11:04 am
This proposition seems unbelievably fraught and over-complicated. In any case the issues in KX are not nor have they ever been simply about policing. That is what the Liquor Accord and AHA would like everyone to believe.
Where is the OLGR report on density of licensed premises which was supposed to be released at the end of 2012?
But regarding policing and all other hugely expensive fallout from the very gross number of licensed premises in Kings Cross, all of them should have their taxes and Council levies heavily increased and indexed depending on their patron numbers and especially their opening hours. And if they need more police than some of those funds should be allocated to simply have more regular police; not two strata which is over the top. Nor should there be allowed some vigilante security guards roaming the streets to maintain order. If it is that bad, the basic formula is wrong; pure and simple.
January 10th, 2013 @ 2:25 pm
Cr Vithoulkas has hit the nail on the head with her common sense approach. We need more uniformed Police in Kings Cross and given that the Police Association is in favour of the scheme and it has the potential to make the streets safer how could anyone be against it? Clover Moore is so far out of touch it is a joke. How does the resonsible service of alcohol stop people arriving already drunk?
January 10th, 2013 @ 3:39 pm
The hiring of off-duty police is common practice, especially at this time of year, with events like Field Day and the Cricket factoring the dog squad into the budget. Keeping police impartial might be a concern if there was any evidence of the opposite – cops turning a blind eye to members, for example, or failing to protect businesses which weren’t part of an accord. (Which is voluntary, by the way.)
And while Angela Vithoulkas is right to say that businesses have a right to pay for extra cops, it’s also true that extra police won’t solve anything. I’ve heard it from the horses mouth, when a police officer who was on the scene at the joy-ride shootings earlier in the year literally said just that – extra cops won’t make a bit of difference. But that’s just one opinion.
What would make a difference now, and it’s been recommended in various studies, is a reduction of opening hours, and the overall amount of punters allowed in the place at any one time. Not to mention a shift in the style of venue allowed to operate. Beer barns like the yet-to-reopen Bourbon are like magnets for the pre-boozed groups of young men heading out looking for trouble, while the holes in the wall cater for the less-likely-to-offend thirty-somethings. Mix up what’s available, and you get less violence.
Lastly, using those extra cops to actually police the flow of punters into the precinct, on public transport and the roads, would go a long way to avoiding the trouble once they’ve arrived full of goon. Something slightly forgotten about the Thomas Kelly tragedy was that the man allegedly responsible for his death, Kieran Loveridge, had only been in the cross for a short time before he started dealing out violence, which would suggest that he’d been heading to the Cross with just that intention.
And that suggests that the problem with the Cross lies much deeper than just the practical issues of transport and over-intoxication. It’s the whole culture of violence of booze which needs to change, to avoid attracting, even promoting, the types of actvity which lead to tragedy.
As such, I would argue, it’s a much larger problem than the Precinct alone should be expected to handle. AHA, OLGR, the Council, State Government, and those who profit from the sale of liquor should all be held responsible, and should all contribute to a solution.
Why should the Ibrahims of the world profit, while local residents and innocent youngsters cop the flack?
January 10th, 2013 @ 5:35 pm
Kings Cross clubs suggest the NSW Police Force should be employed by clubs to monitor anti-social, grog-fuelled compliance in Kings Cross.
The scheme apparently involves levies to be collected by council, although how this would work is not made clear.
Both Sydney Council and state government should refuse to sanction this scheme.
Our concerns are:
1 If Police were doing their job in the first place such a scheme would not be necessary.
2 The scheme is designed by pubs and clubs for pubs and clubs in pubs’ and clubs’ interests, no-one else’s. They are paying $2,000 a night for security but want Sydney Council to impose levy to cover their costs. Council refuses, apparently.
3 This is a back-door, money-making scheme being pushed by the union to give more police more ‘work’, but paid for by others.
4 Eventually, police will not patrol Kings Cross at all because they can claim off-duty officers are handling it: it’s a get-off-work card for on-duty officers.
5 Police lose their impartiality when investigating KX crime: they will be investigating other police officers if physical violence is involved or claims of assault against off-duty officers arise.
The result will be “no further action” report and more on-street crime, not less.
6 Police should not be paid or even be seen to be ‘paid off’ by those pubs and clubs who are then subject to official police investigations or OLGA for non-compliance breaches. Such breaches must be based on impartial police evidence and not subject to claims of bias.
7 Tainting of evidence by off-duty police will impact on DA submissions to Sydney Council by on-duty police, who will be fellow officers.
This form of ‘fusion’ breeds corruption as ‘off-duty’ police become beholden to their employers, rather than the public, when they are later ‘on duty’.
8 Conflict of interests arise from police moonlighting in two jobs simultaneously.
9 This is an attempt by pubs and clubs to nobble police and blur assault statistics. ‘Off-duty’ police will be disinclined to dob in their employers: it’s a simple case of the “paying the piper to play the tune “.
10 This scheme has been promoted twice before and rejected both times by Police Command and the Minister: it’s only supported by the union.
This is why the current Minister refuses to agree to it.
11 Kings Cross is distinguished from Sydney Cricket Ground events. where police are employed, because KX has an ingrained underbelly criminal element. SCG holds once-only events. Claims for any analogy are spurious.
12 The current private security guards are run by Nic Constantin, according to another media article in the Sun-Herald of Jan 6, where he is described as a former “armed robber”.
13 A large number of currently-serving police officers are against this whole idea they say privately.
14 This proposal has no known real resident community support.
15. Yes, we need many more uniformed police but these should be on-duty, not off-duty officers.
16. And we neeed a permanent police presence on Darlinghurst Road 24/7 such as a shop-front police presence similar to what was/is in George Street for many years.
Thank you
Andrew Woodhouse
President
Potts Point & Kings Cross Heritage Conservation Society
January 10th, 2013 @ 11:05 pm
Mr Woodhouse, Sir,
You clearly do not understand the concept of “User-Pay” policing services. Individual Police in NSW are hired and paid a wage by the NSW Police Force. There is no proposal for individual officers to be approached or hired directly by anyone, and thus becoming “beholden”.
In your somewhat circular and repetitive argument above, you constantly refer to user pay rostered officers as “Off Duty Police”. This is where you are wrong. Police performing “user-pay” duties are not “off duty”, they are on duty, working overtime hours, the cost of which is not borne by the Government.
Police on user pay duty are “on duty” and that means required to record their interactions with the public and venue staff in exactly the same way as normal. They are subject to the same oversight checks and balances as normal, equipped with the same uniform, radios and weapons as normal. Still subject to their oath of office, and still expected to fairly and impartially investigate matters reported to them. The public will not be able to tell the difference between “regular duty” police and “user pay” police.
This is no “back door” attempt by the Police Association to score more work for the cops. Indeed it is the opposite. Police as individuals are not allowed to engage in “moonlighting” which as you very rightly point out breeds corruption. What is proposed here is that the NSW Police *Organisation* is paid to provide further policing resources. Very different. Police on user pay duty are not “moonlighting” they are doing their one (and only) job.
If anything the implementation of this scheme is likely to cause trouble for any misbehaving venues because they will receive MORE attention from police, which means more stats recorded against them (incidentally recorded in the exactly the same way as if the report was taken by an officer performing regular-time duties!)
Sir you clearly need to do you homework and understand the user pay scheme. Your concerns are easily addressed. Time for a new argument.
I assume at point 13 that you are speaking from some body of research and I would like to hear how large your sample size is, where those officers are based and what their knowledge/experience of the user pay system is. Evidence please?
Also at point 14 I guess that you are speaking for the the Conservation Society that you represent. Once again, how big is your sample size of the “resident community”? Evidence again please, BEFORE you go making broad brush statements based on your own incorrect assumptions.
Thanks.
January 11th, 2013 @ 1:28 pm
It is difficult to think of a better way to corrupt police than to pay them extra to do their day job by Kings Cross clubs.
Police will lose their impartiality when investigating KX crime: they will be investigating fellow police officers if physical violence is involved or claims of assault against off-duty officers arise.
The result will be “no further action” and more on-street crime, not less.
To respond briefly to a point by an anonymous person called “Crouton”, which we always thought was a bit of stale bread floating aimlessly in soup, I attended a recent, packed-out council community meeting where senior police were present.
All said they were absolutely and adamantly against the idea.
You don’t need a “body of research” or a “sample size” to understand what this means, “Crouton”. It means a substantial number of police are against it.
Jake and Ellie Mcpherson
January 11th, 2013 @ 1:53 pm
CLUBS PART OF PROBLEM NOT SOLUTION
Former armed robber and Kings Cross identity, Nic Constantin, is right to look after his own security cartel for pubs and clubs.
But the government is right to put people before profits.
And it is right to ensure police integrity is not compromised by having off-duty police working on Saturday nights for the same people they may have to prosecute on Monday morning, an obvious conflict of interest.
This policy is bad management practice and has no known local community support.
If police were doing their job in the first place such a scheme would not be necessary.
Scott Weber, head of the police association and the Last Drinks Coalition, claims the system could be a major tool in cleaning up Kings Cross.
However, it will only lead to more crime and corruption as police protect their additional incomes and turn a blind eye to their real bosses crimes, ie., those of pubs and clubs.
His naive suggestion the current scenario is analagous to an SCG cricket match, where some off-duty police work, lacks credibility.
Clearly, “Crouton” pro-police views are biased. To suggest clubs will get more attention because police are off-duty misunderstands what off-duty means. It means thay are paid for and rostered according to their bosses wishes, that is, clubs’ wishes.
This is not our police service working as “normal”, as “Crouton” claims.
“Crouton” doesn’t understand this.
We want more on-duty police not additional off-duty police.
They are then not beholden to clubs, but the community.
Who pays the money into their accounts, whether it be the police service or not, is quite irrelevant.
This is moonlighting because it’s doing a second job at the expence of their first job.
“Crouton” doesn’t understand this either.
There should be no link, direct or indirect, between paying police and clubs.
After all, someone’s got to approach them to work.
No wonder State MP, Alex Greenwich, is against the idea as well.
***********************************************************
January 11th, 2013 @ 3:24 pm
Psst! Want to hear a secret?
Both “Sick of Lefties “and “Crouton” above are collaborative police union advocates.
Claims about a “fantastic” police service are a nonsense on stilts
I live in Kings Cross, having previously been married to a police officer for 18 years, who was a lazy bum.
With extended, disingenuous over-use of generous sick leave, cumulative annual leave entitlements, stress leave, long service leave, maternity, adoption and parental leave and rosters that gave them four days off in a row, he was hardly at work.
Alot did other jobs to increase their incomes but never compromised their income security by dobbing in their second-job employers if they discovered crime.
I know of cases of falsification of court evidence and statistics to make the numbers look good and well-reported bashings such as those by Cmdr Mark Murdoch’s police son at the SCG and various roster rorts.
Combined with over-zealous use of tasers and a “shoot-now-ask-questions-later” attitude and a police-investigating-police mates complaints system, it’s no wonder police in Kings Cross have little credibility.
They cannot do the job assigned to them now, not just because there may or may not not be enough of them, but because they are too loath to leave their desks.
There were none on the street today in KX between 12 noon and 3pm and a recent patrol by a Councillor with others recently found none on the street at night between 11pm and 3am.
Any scheme to get them to do their real work on days off will only mean increased sickies and favouritism for their new, real bosses: pubs and clubs.
If this scheme goes ahead expect even more corruption.
You can always tell a cop: they attack the messenger and not the message.
The real problem here is club hours of operation and Sydney Council DA approvals and compliance, not just police.
Yours sincerely
Julie La Marchant
January 11, 2013
January 12th, 2013 @ 8:56 pm
Our policy is not to respond to comments from those who seek anonymity behind pseudonyms or nom-de-plumes.
We won’t be responding to “Crouton” or “Sick of Lefties”.
However, readers will be interested to read the following letter from Mr Alex Greenwich MP, Member for Sydney, regarding use of off-duty police.
His views corroborate ours:
8 January 2013
Dear Mr Woodhouse
I refer to your email about the Kings Cross liqour Accord’s proposal for user pays police in Kings Cross.
NSW Police have previously declined to approve ongoing arrangements for user-pays police as distinct from a one-off event. I share community concern about potential incentives for corruption and setting a precedent for private sector providing basic police services, and do not support this approach.
Yours sincerely
Alex Greenwich
Member for Sydney
58 Oxford Street Paddington 2012 facebook.com/alexgreenwich
T 02 9360 3053 F 02 9331 6963
E sydney.parliament.nsw.gov.au http://www.alexgreenwich.com.au
twitter.com/alexgreenwich
Thank you to City News for raising this important, complex public interest issue so professionally.
Andrew Woodhouse
President
Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage Conservation Society
Ph 0415 949 506
———————————————————–
March 7th, 2013 @ 9:10 am
Hi there, this weekend is fastidious for me, because this
occasion i am reading this enormous educational piece of writing here at my
residence.