Part One – 2 December
Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to talk about a very deeply serious matter tonight that I would expect should concern all members. It relates to outstanding questions relating to actions taken or not taken by senior members of Tasmania Police and the state government in relation to former police officer Paul Reynolds.
It’s well known that Reynolds abused and exploited teenage boys over a period of at least 30 years. The facts of that were established by the Weiss Review, which reported to government last year. However, despite this review being undertaken, a number of serious and important questions remain about Reynolds and the institutional responses to his actions, responses made during his life, and after his death. These questions continue unanswered because the Weiss Review’s terms of reference were too narrow, and its powers too weak to enable a full and proper examination of relevant matters.
This problem has again been rearticulated in recent days in the latest episode of the podcast Badge of Betrayal, produced and hosted by Jay Walkerden. The series takes a close look at the Reynolds matter and in the new episode, episode 3, Mr Walkerden speaks to a currently serving senior officer in Tasmania Police. The police officer is unambiguous. He describes the Weiss Review as, ‘A failed inquiry.’ To be clear, the police officer doesn’t blame Regina Weiss, who was the appointed reviewer of the Paul Reynolds investigation, for the failure. Not at all. What he says is that, ‘The terms of reference, when you look at it, never allowed it to be successful.’
I don’t think we can overestimate how much bravery it would take or how much concern this officer must hold in order for them to speak out, but we are so glad that they’ve done this, and that Mr Walkerden has given them this platform because since the day the government announced the Weiss Review, the Greens have maintained it was set up in a way that made it impossible to answer the questions that need to be answered for the full truth to come out. The government did not initiate this review because they thought it was necessary or the right thing to do. They were pushed into it after the Greens publicly called for actions and after other members of parliament supported our call. When the government conceded and announced a review would occur, the terms of reference were written personally by the Police Commissioner. We expressed our strong concerns about both the narrow scope and weak powers of the review. In particular, we criticised the fact it did not cover an investigation about the decision to award Paul Reynolds with a full‑honours police funeral. I quote from my statement from that day, 6 October 2023:
It is good news to see an independent investigation has been announced, but we are troubled to see the inadequate terms of reference that have been set by the Commissioner of Police. It also appears the investigation has not been given the power to compel witnesses, order the production of evidence, or refer individuals for prosecution. This investigation should be empowered to look at this deeply serious issue in full without being hobbled from the outset.
A week later I wrote to Police minister, Felix Ellis, to reiterate these concerns and suggested a much more comprehensive terms of reference. Minister Ellis denied this request and I still don’t know why he wouldn’t want to do everything to make sure the review was comprehensive.
The Weiss Review was released on the 4 July 2024. As predicted, it left important questions unanswered. At the time I made a statement that called for further action, saying:
This report has shone a light on extensive abuse. However, unfortunately, it did not have the scope to address all relevant matters or sufficient powers to undertake the full investigation required. We called for the government to refer the unanswered questions about Paul Reynolds with all available evidence to the Integrity Commission so it could do a complete investigation with the powers it needed to compel evidence, but this was not done.
Again, I can’t find a sensible reason to explain why Police minister Ellis has never taken these steps.
As a result of this inaction, it is still the case today that the questions about officer, Paul Reynolds, known to have exploited and abused boys over years, have not been satisfactorily investigated, and critical questions remain unexamined. The Greens are very concerned about this matter
I foreshadow that I will further contribute to this matter tomorrow evening.
Part Two – 3 December
Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – Honourable Speaker, I rise tonight to continue my contribution from last night regarding the Paul Reynolds child sexual abuse matter. It’s still the case that important questions about how matters relating to police officer Paul Reynolds were investigated or not satisfactorily investigated, and these have never been properly examined. One of the biggest issues is why and how Paul Reynolds was given a full honours police funeral.
Government ministers and police have repeatedly said they’ve apologised for giving Paul Reynolds, a police officer known to have sexually abused and exploited teenage boys for three decades a funeral with honours. But their determination to drop the matter and avoid the critical question about how it was allowed to happen in the first place makes their apologies seem like bad faith.
To set the record straight, there was nothing in the Tasmania Police Manual at the time that said the funeral had to go ahead. The manual then simply said:
Subject to the consent of the next of kin or relatives, the commissioner may approve a police funeral for a deceased member.
‘May’, not ‘must’. It was the commissioner’s discretion. The fact is a senior police officer suicided because he was confronted with the weight of evidence of child sexual abuse he had perpetrated, and in that knowledge the commissioner decided to mobilise the full police force to celebrate him. Which leads me to the fundamental point: there’s never been an explanation given for why former commissioner Darren Hine decided to give Paul Reynolds a full‑honours funeral and glowing eulogy. The commissioner did this despite knowing the extensive evidence Tasmania Police held about Paul Reynolds in relation to his 2018 abusing, and despite the commissioner himself personally being involved in handling prior allegations made against Reynolds 10 years earlier in 2008.
Were the officers in Tasmania Police who knew about Reynolds’ sexual abuse opposed to the decision to give him a police funeral? Or did they give it their full blessing? It’s a matter of public record that commissioner Hine’s decision caused much pain and uproar among some serving police officers and betrayed victim/survivors. The honouring of a man who was objectively dishonourable also, by association, tarnished the reputation of all police officers in Tasmania and that is shameful. It was a deeply problematic decision by the commissioner. We still don’t know how it could have happened, which is a significant reason for why it deserves proper examination.
There are also questions about whether the personal relationships that existed between Paul Reynolds and senior members of the Tasmanian government and senior Tasmania Police influenced their decision‑making or actions on matters before his death and surrounding his funeral. Those questions also go to significant matters that were not able to be covered by the Weiss review including:
- the inappropriate way concerns about Reynolds’ sexual abuse of young people were handled internally within Tasmania Police in 2008;
- the circumstances around Reynolds’ so‑called self demotion to a lower position;
- Reynolds’ connections to criminal associates and allegations he shared police information with them, which were highlighted in the coroner’s report into his death; and
- why the police Professional Standards investigation into Reynolds was dropped after his death.
Both the coroner’s report and the Tasmanian commission of inquiry stated they did not have the jurisdiction to fully examine these matters. That is exactly why the Greens called for an independent investigation into these matters by the Weiss review, and it’s why we remain troubled today that the review was not given the scope and powers to adequately address those matters and why the government refused to refer outstanding matters from the review for further investigation. Here we are today, with a podcast seeking to answer questions because the government has refused to do it, and there’s some déjà vu to that, because it was Camille Bianchi’s brilliant work on The Nurse podcast that shone a spotlight on the James Geoffrey Griffin matter and ultimately led to the commission of inquiry.
Five years on and here we begin again. Jay Walkerden is doing a fantastic work on Badge of Betrayal and the people speaking to him are amazing and brave; but they’ve been forced to do this because the government has failed to do its job to properly investigate decisions made at the highest level of Tasmania Police and government about the Paul Reynolds matter. I can’t explain why the government has been so reluctant to do this in the past, but I implore them to rethink their position now.
Question to Minister – 4 December
Dr WOODRUFF – In the most recent episode of podcast Badge of Betrayal, a currently serving senior officer in Tasmania Police described the review into child sexual abuser Paul Reynolds as ‘a failed inquiry’. He said the Weiss review had not addressed fundamental and important matters, but made it clear that was not because of any failures of the reviewer, but because of the narrow scope and limited powers of the review.
During Adjournments over the past two days, I’ve detailed a range of significant questions that remain unanswered. These include questions about the actions of senior members of the Tasmanian government and Tasmania Police in response to the Reynolds matter, both before and after his death. Do you acknowledge this matter has not been satisfactorily examined and will you ensure the government acts to make sure all outstanding issues are properly investigated?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question and genuine interest in this matter. First, I will say again that our hearts go out to victim/survivors, particularly those of Mr Paul Reynolds. There is absolutely no place in our society for that kind of predatory behaviour against children, but particularly no place for that in Tasmania Police.
In terms of the reviews that have been conducted into Mr Reynolds’ behaviour, these have been extensive. The commission of inquiry has examined them, indeed with a specific case study, there has been a coronial investigation, the Weiss review which was commissioned subsequent to the commission of inquiry, and of course the police professional standards investigation which uncovered Paul Reynolds’ offending, which was reported by a police officer at the time and subsequently Mr Reynolds took his own life.
As I mentioned before, these matters have been extensively canvassed off the back of the commission of inquiry. The Commissioner of Police apologised specifically for the decision of the former commissioner of police to grant a police funeral to Mr Reynolds. It was the wrong decision by the commissioner at the time to grant that. I’ve also echoed that apology on behalf of government in the past. From that, the police handbook was updated so that commissioners in future have to take into account police professional standards investigations in the granting of any police funeral, so that matter has already been resolved.
The Weiss review was extensive and widely regarded as a very strong professional body of work. It made five recommendations and the government accepted all five of those. The police commissioner also accepted all five and the rollout of the actions to implement the Weiss recommendations are well underway. They were funded in past budgets and in this Budget and Tasmania Police are doing an exceptional job to ensure we’re delivering on those commitments and helping to rebuild the trust of the community and protecting victim/survivors. I think it’s really heartening to see the work of the new police command for community engagement. That was part of the Weiss recommendations and they have been doing wonderful work to help bring the community together and address some of these concerns.
I think in one of your previous contributions you mentioned that the Integrity Commission hasn’t been notified. That is not correct. Of course this is a public document.
Supplementary Question
Dr WOODRUFF – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Dr WOODRUFF – The Police minister referenced the Weiss review and the police standards review and said that these had uncovered Paul Reynolds’ offending. Correct, but they did not and were not empowered to ask the questions which I’ve put before the House on a number of occasions about the actions or inactions of people in senior positions of power. My question remains. Minister, can you explain why you won’t do the investigation? Is it because you’re uncomfortable about what it might find?
The SPEAKER – The honourable member’s time for the question has expired but I do draw the minister back to the original question.
Mr ELLIS – As I mentioned before, there was a police Professional Standards investigation in 2018, a coronial inquest in 2023 –
Dr Woodruff – But they didn’t look at these matters; that’s the point.
The SPEAKER – Order.
Mr ELLIS – Dr Woodruff, the inquiry into the Tasmanian government’s response into child sexual abuse in institutional settings looked specifically at that matter.
Dr Woodruff – It did not ask the question about the funeral.
The SPEAKER – Dr Woodruff, you can ask another question if you’re not happy with the minister’s answer. I ask, for the next 30 seconds, that the minister be heard, please.
Mr ELLIS – There was the Weiss review itself, and then following the Weiss review, the commissioner directed all police Professional Standards files involving allegations of sexual abuse to be proactively referred to the Integrity Commission. This matter has been extensively looked into, Dr Woodruff. The decision to grant a police funeral has already been acknowledged as wrong and the decision to make and improve processes was made ahead of the Weiss review.
