Introduction
The release of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s annual report on the Australian Federal Police’s (AFP) handling of complaints for the period from July 2023 to June 2024 marks a critical juncture in the ongoing scrutiny of law enforcement accountability in Australia. Authored under the oversight of Ombudsman Iain Anderson, the report exposes persistent deficiencies in the AFP’s complaints management system, particularly in how it addresses allegations of misconduct by its officers, including those serving in ACT Policing. This document, mandated under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, reveals a pattern of unreasonable discretion, inadequate investigations and poor communication that undermines public trust in policing. As Anderson poignantly states, “I am concerned that the AFP is not delivering a complaint handling system that meets the requirements of the [legislation] by disregarding complaints about its officers which should be investigated.” This failure not only contravenes legislative intent, but also perpetuates systemic issues that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, including Indigenous Australians.
The report’s findings are not isolated; they echo long-standing concerns about police conduct in Australia, where allegations of racism, procedural lapses and unaccountable power have plagued institutions like the AFP for decades. A stark illustration of these issues can be found in historical complaints involving former Constable Rowena Penfold, whose alleged racist remarks during a search warrant on an Indigenous family’s home, coupled with mishandling of seized evidence, highlight the very problems the Ombudsman critiques. Despite formal complaints, Penfold faced no penalties and has instead been promoted through the ranks, currently holding the position of Acting Commander, a senior role within the AFP. This case, intertwined with claims involving figures like Angel Marina and Jeff House, underscores how individual misconduct can flourish 5within a flawed system, leading to broader injustices.
In this essay, we will explore the Ombudsman’s report in depth, examining its key findings on complaint handling, the disproportionate use of discretion to avoid action and systemic communication failures. We will then delve into the Penfold case as a case study, drawing on documented allegations to demonstrate how such incidents exemplify the report’s concerns. Further sections will analyse the broader systemic issues, the proposed recommendations and the AFP’s response, before concluding with the implications for Australian policing and Indigenous rights. By weaving together official reports, historical allegations and expert commentary, this analysis aims to illuminate the urgent need for reform in a system that too often prioritises institutional protection over justice and accountability. The persistence of these issues, as noted in the report, reflects not just administrative shortcomings, but a deeper cultural problem within law enforcement that demands immediate attention.
The context of this report is particularly timely, arriving amid heightened national discussions on police reform following inquiries like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and recent debates on Indigenous incarceration rates. In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where AFP officers also perform community policing duties, complaints often involve interactions with marginalised groups, amplifying the stakes. The Ombudsman’s review, conducted in two phases – August 2023 for minor misconduct and May 2024 for serious misconduct – analysed a sample of complaints, revealing that 85% of minor misconduct cases were dismissed without further action, a sharp increase from previous years. This trend, deemed unreasonable in most instances, suggests a deliberate avoidance of scrutiny that could expose deeper patterns of abuse.
Moreover, the report critiques the AFP’s failure to address prior recommendations, with Anderson expressing frustration: “In my view, the failure to adequately address issues that have been the subject of previous recommendations by my office does not reflect responsible administration.” This echoes critiques from bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission, which have long highlighted racial bias in policing. The Penfold incident, dating back to the early 2000s, but resurfacing in advocacy discussions, serves as a poignant example. During a search warrant execution, Penfold allegedly made derogatory racist comments, including slurs like “boong cunt”, while failing to adhere to evidence-handling protocols. Complaints about these actions were lodged, yet no investigation ensued and Penfold was transferred to roles in the Northern Territory, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands before her promotion. This trajectory raises questions about how the AFP rewards rather than reprimands problematic behaviour, aligning with the Ombudsman’s concerns over uninvestigated complaints.
The involvement of external figures like Angel Marina, who reportedly boasted of manipulating AFP investigations and referenced his “friends” in the force, further complicates the narrative. Marina’s written and verbal statements, including threats to influence probes into Indigenous individuals, suggest a network of complicity that the AFP’s complaint system failed to dismantle. Similarly, Jeff House, then Chief of Staff to the ACT Treasurer, allegedly received a copy of Penfold’s investigation file, which he used to harass the affected Indigenous family. These elements, drawn from advocacy sources and cross-examined testimonies, illustrate how leaks and biases can exacerbate harm, all while the AFP’s discretion to ignore complaints shields perpetrators.
In essence, the Ombudsman’s report is a damning indictment of a system in crisis, where legislative safeguards are routinely bypassed. As we proceed, it becomes clear that without substantive change, cases like Penfold’s will continue to erode public confidence, particularly among Indigenous communities who bear the brunt of such failures.
Overview of the Ombudsman’s Report Findings
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report provides a comprehensive assessment of the AFP’s compliance with Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, focusing on the administration of complaints categorised by severity: Categories 1 and 2 for minor misconduct (e.g., customer service failures or minor breaches) and Categories 3 and 4 for serious misconduct (e.g., corrupt conduct or excessive use of force). Covering 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, the review sampled complaints handled by the Workplace Issues and Complaints Resolution (WICR) team for minor issues and Professional Standards (PRS) for serious ones. Key findings reveal a systemic overreliance on section 40TF of the Act, which allows discretion to take no further action if deemed appropriate.
For minor misconduct, the report notes that the WICR team finalised 85% of complaints using this discretion, a disproportionate increase from 32% in previous periods. Of the 11 instances reviewed, 9 were unreasonable, often because the AFP dismissed complaints without adequate evidence gathering or consideration of circumstances. For instance, complaints involving use of force that resulted in injury, including against children, were incorrectly categorised as Category 2 rather than escalated to Category 3, allowing them to be dropped without investigation. This practice not only contravenes the Act’s intent to address conduct issues but also misses opportunities to identify broader “practices issues” like procedural non-compliance.
In serious misconduct cases, the issues were equally alarming. The Ombudsman identified instances where no further action was taken despite clear evidence warranting investigation, such as a Category 3 complaint alleging corrupt conduct involving personal use of AFP vehicles. Despite admissions from officers, the matter was not pursued, and relevant infor, or appointees were identifiable but not interviewed. Anderson highlights a persistent systemic issue: “My office previously identified a systemic issue of the AFP not investigating complaints based on the perceived merits of incomplete information, often without sufficient attempt to obtain potential evidence from complainants and AFP appointees.” He adds that this has not been addressed, leading to premature decisions that undermine accountability.
Communication failures compound these problems, a concern raised since 2009. The report found inadequate acknowledgments, lack of updates and outcome letters that were vague or biased. For example, letters often failed to detail how conduct was assessed, using subjective phrasing that implied complainant fault. This violates section 40TA(2) of the Act, which requires timely updates. Systemic record-keeping flaws were also noted, with the new complaint system not separating multiple issues, hindering tracking.
Overall, the report criticises the AFP for failing to action practices issues, with only 3 out of 620 conduct complaints leading to systemic reviews despite evidence of widespread problems like unaccounted seized items or guideline misunderstandings. Anderson’s overarching concern is that this reflects irresponsible administration, limiting the AFP’s ability to mitigate high-risk behaviours.
These findings are corroborated by external commentary, such as from the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA) president Alex Caruana, who called for better training and resources to handle complaint volumes. The report’s release has sparked media attention, emphasising how such failures disproportionately affect communities like Indigenous Australians, where trust in police is already fragile due to historical injustices.
Case Study: The Allegations Against Constable Rowena Penfold
To understand the real-world impact of the Ombudsman’s findings, consider the case of Constable Rowena Penfold, whose alleged misconduct during a search warrant on an Indigenous family’s home exemplifies the systemic failures in complaint handling. This incident, detailed in advocacy blogs and cross-examination testimonies, involved racist comments, procedural violations and unaccounted evidence – issues that the subject of complaint but never adequately investigated, allowing Penfold to advance her career unimpeded.
The events unfolded in the early 2000s when Penfold, then a constable with ACT Policing (under AFP jurisdiction), executed a search warrant on a property owned by an Indigenous family. According to accounts, Penfold made outrageously racist remarks, including referring to an individual as a “boong cunt” – a deeply offensive slur targeting Aboriginal people. This occurred during the warrant’s execution, captured partially on audio before the equipment was allegedly turned off. Under cross-examination, Penfold admitted to not following AFP document handling procedures, failing to account for all seized materials, including a crucial photograph that has never been produced. Discrepancies between the seizure receipt and audio recordings further suggested tampering or negligence.
Complaints were lodged immediately, highlighting not only the racism but also the unauthorised destruction or loss of property. Yet, the AFP exercised discretion to take no further action, mirroring the patterns critiqued in the 2023-2024 report. Instead of penalties, Penfold was transferred to the Northern Territory, then Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands – roles that advocacy sources describe as a “penalty” in name only, but effectively a pathway to promotion. By 2025, she had risen to Acting Commander, a senior position overseeing significant operations. This progression raises profound questions about accountability: how can an officer accused of serious misconduct advance without resolution?
The case intersects with broader allegations involving Angel Marina, a former ACT Treasury official known for racist views. Marina reportedly wrote letters vilifying Indigenous people, stating that “all Aborigines are compulsive liars and criminals,” and boasted of manipulating AFP investigations. He referenced “friends” in the AFP and claimed he could influence probes into the “boong cunt,” directly linking to the Penfold incident. These statements, made in writing and verbally, were part of complaints, yet no thorough investigation followed. Marina’s actions allegedly extended to indecent assault on a senior Indigenous banking executive, further illustrating unchecked bias.
Compounding this, Jeff House, Chief of Staff to then-ACT Treasurer Ted Quinlan, admitted to receiving Penfold’s entire investigation file, which he used to harass and intimidate the Indigenous family. This breach of confidentiality highlights procedural leaks that the Ombudsman’s report critiques as part of poor record-keeping and communication. House’s role in government underscores the politicisation of policing, where AFP files were weaponised for personal or political gain, as alleged in blogs detailing ALP corruption.
This case study reveals how the AFP’s disproportionate use of discretion – unreasonable in 9 out of 11 minor misconduct samples per the report – allows racism and misconduct to persist. Penfold’s unpunished actions contributed to patterns of Indigenous over-incarceration in the ACT, where enforcement biases amplify disparities. Advocacy sources argue that such incidents reflect institutional racism, with the AFP’s failure to investigate echoing Anderson’s concern over decisions based on incomplete information. Had the complaints been properly handled, systemic reforms might have prevented Penfold’s promotion and addressed underlying biases.
The Penfold saga is not unique; it aligns with national trends, such as those documented in the Productivity Commission’s reports on Indigenous disadvantage, where police interactions often escalate due to prejudice. By ignoring these complaints, the AFP not only violates the Act but also perpetuates harm, as seen in the family’s ongoing intimidation. This example vividly illustrates why the Ombudsman’s 19 recommendations are crucial, demanding changes to ensure complaints like these are investigated fully.
Systemic Issues in AFP Complaint Handling
Beyond individual cases, the Ombudsman’s report uncovers deep-rooted systemic issues in the AFP’s complaint handling, spanning discretion, investigations and communication. These problems, persistent despite prior oversight, indicate a cultural resistance to accountability that affects all stakeholders, particularly marginalised groups.
The overuse of section 40TF discretion is central, deemed unfair and disproportionate. For minor misconduct, the spike to 85% dismissals suggests a default to avoidance, often without regard to circumstances like use of force injuries. In serious cases, this led to uninvestigated corruption or assault allegations, with Anderson noting, “I am concerned this issue has not been addressed and the AFP is continuing to decide to not investigate complaints before confirming the existence of relevant evidence.” This practice contravenes responsible administration, as it prevents identification of patterns, such as those in the Penfold incident where evidence mishandling went unaddressed.
Investigation deficiencies further exacerbate this. The report cites incomplete evidence gathering, such as not reviewing footage or interviewing known parties, leading to premature closures. For example, a firearm misuse case was dropped without assessing safety risks, despite workplace concerns. This mirrors historical complaints where, like in Marina’s manipulations, potential evidence from complainants was ignored. Systemic bias is evident in how complaints involving racism are downplayed, contributing to Indigenous over-representation in the justice system.
Communication issues, ongoing for over a decade, include no internal guidance for updates, resulting in complainants feeling dismissed. Outcome letters lack detail, violating the Act and eroding trust. The AFPA echoes this, stating both complainants and officers deserve timely updates. In Indigenous contexts, this opacity amplifies trauma, as seen in the Penfold case endured harassment without resolution.
Record-keeping flaws, with undifferentiated issues in the new system, hinder tracking, allowing practices like evidence loss to recur. Only minimal action on practices issues was taken, despite evidence of widespread guideline breaches.
These issues reflect broader critiques of Australian policing, where institutional racism – rooted in stereotypes – biases outcomes. The report’s call for change is thus essential to dismantle these barriers.
Recommendations and AFP Response
The Ombudsman issued 19 recommendations (12 from the minor review, plus suggestions; total 19 across both), aimed at overhauling the system. Key ones include: revising guidelines on section 40TF use to ensure reasoned decisions; mandating evidence gathering before dismissals; improving categorisation for accurate escalation; enhancing communication protocols with templates for updates and detailed outcome letters; developing training on practices issues identification; and better record-keeping systems to track multi-issue complaints.
The AFP accepted 12 in full and seven partially, committing to implementation. Commissioner Reece Kershaw initiated an external review of complaints processes, signalling intent for reform. An AFP spokesperson affirmed, “The AFP is committed to working with the ombudsman to ensure continuous improvement.” However, partial acceptances on discretion guidelines suggest resistance and success depends on genuine execution.
Broader Implications for Policing
The report’s findings and cases like Penfold’s have profound implications for Australian policing, particularly regarding Indigenous rights. They highlight how unaddressed racism and misconduct contribute to higher incarceration rates, with Indigenous people facing biased enforcement. This perpetuates cycles of disadvantage, as noted in national inquiries.
Reform requires cultural shifts, including anti-bias training and independent oversight. The AFP’s external review could be pivotal, but without addressing politicisation – as in allegations of ALP influence – change will be superficial. Ultimately, these issues challenge Australia’s commitment to justice, demanding transparency to rebuild trust.
Conclusion
The Ombudsman’s report exposes a broken AFP complaint system, exemplified by unpunished misconduct like Penfold’s. With recommendations in hand, the AFP must reform to ensure accountability or risk further eroding public trust. For Indigenous communities, this is a fight for equity – change is imperative.
—
This blog post explores the critical issues surrounding the Australian Federal Police’s handling of complaints, particularly focusing on systemic failures and the implications for marginalised communities.
