ABSTRACT
Police oversight models for each Australian jurisdiction involve at least one external agency with the power to review police complaint handling, including an investigative role, although resources and powers and/or remit for this role diŽer. For example, some agencies may be limited to conducting investigations of only administrative matters, or on-duty actions of sworn o•cers, while others may have the power to conduct an investigation into any matter of public interest, including high-level corruption. Resources also diŽer in that, while some agencies are large, with well-resourced specialised support for investigations (e.g., dedicated covert tactics and intelligence-gathering
units), others are small, with low staŽ numbers and low levels of funding, meaning that certain powers or functions are unable to be exercised. In many cases, legislation dictates what matters are to be handled by which agency and, in some cases, legislation provides the oversight agency with the power to make such decisions. In practice, some agencies have developed a memorandum of understanding regarding agency jurisdiction over matters, and legislation o¬en allows oversight agencies the power to investigate or oversee any matter that it decides is appropriate or necessary. is may leave grey areas of responsibility, misunderstandings of roles, or feelings of powerlessness for police, particularly where multiple external agencies are involved. However, most jurisdictions appear to have reached a workable model in regard to assignment of responsibility for cases. e development of clearer standards for assigning cases between internal and external agencies is likely to be beneŒcial, though, particularly in enhancing the transparency of complaints management models.
