Skip to main content

After a difficult and, at times, exasperating pay round process, our attention is now on the arbiter, who will determine the final makeup of our constabulary and managers’ collective agreements.

 

It is important to remember that this journey to final offer arbitration (FOA) has been different from those of the past, largely because of the facilitated bargaining step we went through along the way.

That step delivered a commitment to the remuneration design group (RDG) process instead of a “let’s just do some more work on this approach” that offers no certainty. It also seemed to replace Police’s usual “no offer” stance with a “duty” to consider rather than immediately rebuff our claims.

Importantly, facilitation enabled a commitment to back pay to July 1, the day the collectives expired.

While our Repay the Risk campaign, which members embraced wholeheartedly, has now wound down, the reality is that it’s only in hibernation. In less than a year, we will be negotiating again, and it will be on behalf of all members.

All three collectives – Police employees, constabulary and managers – will expire on July 1, 2027. As with pay round 2026, success will require careful planning, effective implementation and the continued engagement and support of members.

You have shown passion and determination and that’s a great start for the next battle.

I am conscious that, while our focus has been on pay and conditions, there is another serious employment-related issue that is cause for alarm: the introduction of no-pay suspensions. This is covered in more detail in this month’s edition.

Essentially, the policy places Police in the unique position of being investigator, prosecutor and employer. Implementing a policy that stops an employee being paid when Police determines a matter as serious is arguably Police acting as the judge before a matter even goes to court.

Given that Police fails to obtain a conviction most of the time in these matters, the association has little confidence that it can correctly or fairly determine an officer’s guilt before the court has an opportunity to.

The consequences are extreme and could be construed as a deliberate attempt to limit an employee’s defence and push them to the brink of financial ruin.

As if that were not enough, the wider environment has also been shaped by a steady stream of negative policing stories across media outlets. While these stories may be valid in terms of the public’s right to know, they do little to support member morale or public confidence.

Negative stories will always attract attention, even when they represent a tiny proportion of the work you do every day and every night. “Dog bites man” gets little attention, but “man bites dog” is a guaranteed headline.