Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Honourable Speaker, for almost a decade we have been told that the reforms are coming, but this government has only actioned six of the 55 recommendations from the Cox review since 2016.
We welcome Mr Jenner’s motion today. In fact, it was mid-last year in the other place that the Greens member for Hobart, Ms O’Connor, also had a similar motion in relation to the Integrity Commission. The member for Hobart’s motion noted the vital role of the Integrity Commission, but that it is an Integrity Commission that needs teeth. It needs to be fully funded. I would like to read from Ms O’Connor’s speech in the other place. She said:
The resistance to some of these quite straightforward improvements to the act and functioning of the Integrity Commission makes an old cynic like me pretty cynical, actually, because it feels like there is a real unwillingness on the part of government to do anything to give the Integrity Commission the powers that it needs.
Ms O’Connor is absolutely right. In 2022, the Department of Justice released a discussion paper proposing a number of Cox review reforms to progress in the next tranche of reforms; the paper that Mr Jenner notes in his motion. Three years later, there has still been no progress on those reforms. Also in 2022, the Australia Institute released the report ‘Still Toothless’ by the fiercely intelligent Ms Hay, and it talked about the erosion of public trust in the commission. As was outlined by the member for Clark, Ms Haddad, that is not a reflection of the people in the commission, but rather that it is underfunded and has an incredibly narrow scope that it is trying to operate in.
The Cox review recommendations were joined by recommendation 5 of the Weiss review in 2024. That recommendation begins with:
That consideration be given by Tasmania Police to making a recommendation to the Tasmanian Government for amendments to the Integrity Commission Act 2009 to ensure that all notifications made to the Integrity Commission in respect of members of Tasmania Police who are alleged to have groomed and/or sexually abused persons [serious misconduct] can be investigated independently by the Integrity Commission through
It goes on to list the powers that could be expanded. It also reiterates recommendation 35 of the Cox review, made back in 2016. On page 51 of the Weiss review into Paul Reynolds, under ‘Integrity Commissions – A comparative analysis of Australian jurisdictions’, it says:
Tasmania’s Integrity Commission was established by the Integrity Commission Act 2009 and as noted above, commenced operating in 2010. As the following comparative analysis will show, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission’s powers vis-à-vis police are significantly lesser to analogous integrity commissions and bodies with jurisdiction over law enforcement in other Australian States and Territories.
Strengthening investigative powers to assist in the detection of police misconduct such as that perpetuated by Reynolds for over 30 years would be a step in the right direction to answering the question raised by several Review participants: “Who polices the police?”
It goes on:
In its current state, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission does not measure up to its interstate counterparts with respect to investigative powers over law enforcement officers for serious misconduct such as that perpetuated by Reynolds.
Also in the government’s response to the commission of inquiry, there were further recommendations. A core recommendation from the Commission of Inquiry into the Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings was that the statutory entities should be working together to establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to broaden their collaboration, their data‑sharing, and for clear delineation and understanding of what the statutory’s roles and understandings of those groups were. To be captured under that memorandum of understanding was the Commissioner of Children, the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner, of course, and the Registrar for the registration to work with vulnerable people scheme.
Where is the update on that MOU – agreed upon or adopted?
In the government’s response to recommendation 18.11 of the commission of inquiry, the government commented:
A bill for this and other matters arising from the review is proposed for 2024.
However, in 2024 the government used the proposed independent review of the Integrity Commission as a grounds to delay any Integrity Commission reforms. We are now in 2025. The government has squibbed on that review and we still do not have a date for the Integrity Commission reform bill.
As was outlined by other members, the government argued that they had:
sought and have received advice regarding that proposed review and that it is in the government’s view that the appointment of an independent reviewer to conduct a review of the Integrity Commission may be in conflict with that function.
That advice has never been made public. The government has also argued that a review is not possible because the legislation provides for the Cox review to take place and that has already been conducted; therefore, no further review could take place. Not only is that nonsense on the face of it but the 2022 discussion paper not only considered the Cox review matters but raised additional matters to be reviewed so, clearly, the legislation does not prevent an additional review taking place. The notion that the government would be prohibited from reviewing legislation is absurd and, of course, they are not. It would be virtually impossible to ever amend legislation without a review of some form.
Some matters in the Cox review we are waiting on include the amending of the definition of ‘serious misconduct’ to clarify what a serious offence is. That is in order to ensure the purview of the commission is clear by requiring:
mandatory notification by public authorities of serious misconduct and misconduct of the designated public officers to the commission in a timely manner.
It is remarkable that, after almost 10 years, this has still not been introduced. We are also still waiting on the act to be amended so the commission:
retains jurisdiction over a complaint even after referral to the appropriate person or entity for action, such jurisdiction to include the powers within those Parts.
This is to ensure that the commission has a jurisdiction over the action in relation to a referred complaint is adequate. Given the commission of inquiry examined a referred complaint where the response of the department was poor, the importance of this reform should be self-evident.
These are just a few of the 49 unimplemented recommendations. Many of these are clearly substantial deficits of the act and it is remarkable that nine years after these recommendations were made, they remain unactioned.
This is not just an academic argument. We have seen the failure to act on the Cox review in a timely manner, and it is all still silent on what we are doing in terms of the Weiss review, the funding for the recommendations and how they are going to be rolled out and the timeline for that to be done. It is simply unacceptable, and now there is another Tasmania Police member under investigation.
The Greens support Mr Jenner’s motion but we have some amendments to strengthen it. These have been circulated to members.
Honourable Speaker, I move –
That the motion be amended by omitting clause 2 and substituting the following clauses:
(2) Calls on the government to implement all the recommendations outlined in appendix A of the 2022 Integrity Commission Act 2009 legislative reform discussion paper as a matter of priority to ensure the implementation by the end of the 2025 calendar year, and
(3) Orders the government to report back to the House by the end of September 2025 on any progress and actions taken in respect of clause 2 of this motion, and
(4) Notes that the continued inaction after 10 years of doing nothing will be totally unacceptable to the parliament and to the Tasmanian community
The amendment is not a substantial change to Mr Jenner’s words or intent. Our amendment to the motion changes the provision of clause 2 in the – . Oh, do I have to wait for that?
The SPEAKER – Wait for?
Ms BADGER – In moving that motion?
The SPEAKER – You can move it now and then you will be speaking to it from the moment move it. Or you can move it at the end of your contribution.
Ms BADGER – I apologise. I thought I did before and then I rushed on to the next part.
Honourable Speaker, I move –
That the motion be amended –
The SPEAKER – To move the motion as circulated. I can just call a vote on that now.
Amendment agreed to.
The SPEAKER – We are now debating the motion as amended.
Ms BADGER – As I read before, the motion changes the provisions to clause (2), what was paragraph (b), to be an order, that is that the government does not have to comply with the call, as stated previously, but they do have to with an order. While the House cannot order the government to implement recommendations, we can order them to report back to the House.
Similarly, our amendment corrects the reference in clause (2). I note the member for Lyons, minister Barnett, also spoke to this. That the Integrity Commission’s discussion paper, as I understand it, was a Department of Justice paper.
