Question – Surveillance Device Review
Questions asked by the Hon Meg Webb MLC in November 2022 and answered by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management on 23 March 2023
Can the Government confirm:
1. Was Mr O’Farrell SC consulted on the original Terms of Reference dated 28 September 2022?
Answer 1: Mr O’Farrell was provided with an early draft of the Terms of Reference.
2.
(a) Was legal advice obtained in reference to the original Terms of Reference; and
(b) if so, when, and from whom?
Answer 2: The Legal Services office of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (DPFEM) provided input into the drafting of the Terms of Reference.
3. On what date did the potential illegality of what was proposed by the Review regarding “protected information” become apparent?
4. Who identified the potential for illegal conduct in the conduct of the Review?
Answers 3 & 4: When DPFEM was giving consideration to the information necessary to be provided to Mr O’Farrell for him to carry out his review, it was identified that Section 33 of thePolice Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2006 would prevent disclosure of some of the material. The issue was identified on 7 October 2022.
5. Were Tasmania Police made aware of my letter to the Premier dated 6 October 2022 querying and seeking reassurances regarding the legality of what was proposed?
Answer 5: Your letter of 6 October 2022 to the Premier of Tasmania was provided to DPFEM on 13 October 2022.
6. Following the handing down of the Jeff Thompson decision on 25 August 2022 and to date, has there been any provision of “protected information” to Mr O’Farrell SC, including but not limited to:
(a) materials related to the Jeff Thompson matter such as the application for warrant, the affidavit of Constable Jago and the warrant;
(b) materials related to the Sue Neill-Fraser matter; and
(c) materials related to other relevant matters?
Answer 6: no
7. If material has been provided to Mr O’Farrell,
(a) when did he receive copies of the specific materials; and
(b) has that material now been destroyed or returned to Police?
Answer 7: N/A
8. Has any potential misconduct or breach of the legislation been notified to:
(a) The Police Minister;
(b) The Ombudsman, as the Inspection entity under the relevant Act;
(c) The Integrity Commission;
(d) The Attorney-General; or
(e) any other authority?
Answer 8: Not applicable, as there has been no misconduct or legislative breaches identified. I note His Honour did not find any deliberate illegality on behalf of the police officers involved in the matter and was satisfied that they believed, and were entitled to believe, that the warrant in question had been validly issued.
9. Will the Government state unequivocally that no other illegal behaviour regarding protected information obtained by the use of surveillance devices has occurred in Tasmania over the last 5 years?
Answer 9: The Government is not aware of any breach of Section 33 of the Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act.
See more of Meg’s Questions to Parliament.
