STRIKE FORCE EMBLEMS REPORT

 

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 12 September 2012

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Given the recent revelations about police wire-tapping operations that were reviewed in the Strike Force Emblems report, has the Minister asked the Commissioner of Police why he has not read this critical report on past police practice? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Members are aware of the response I have given thus far in relation to this matter. I can recall telling members some years ago that I would release the recommendations contained in the Emblems report. But I realised, having read the recommendations when I became the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, that if those recommendations were released in the form in which they are recorded in that report, it would not be possible for anyone to determine them as conclusive. For that reason, in May of this year I asked the independent Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, Mr David Levine, QC, to examine whether the recommendations contained in the Emblems report had been satisfactorily implemented and whether those recommendations may be made available to the public. The Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission is the appropriate authority to conduct such a review— Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question is about why the Commissioner of Police has not read the Strike Force Emblems report. It is not about a referral history to the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission is the appropriate authority to conduct such a review—a fact supported and accepted by the New South Wales Police Association. The Premier, who was responsible for the Police Integrity Commission Act, has further asked the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission whether the Emblems report can be publicly released in its entirety. This request has been made in the interests of openness and transparency and to put to rest lingering concerns over this decade-old matter. The Government has no intention of changing its timetable because of dangerous leaks to the media. Justice Levine will consider the Emblems report in whatever time frame he requires and with whatever support he requests from the Government. My priority is to ensure that, whatever happens, investigations into serious organised crime and corruption are not compromised, that the identity of human sources—informants—is protected, and that the lives of officers who investigate serious crimes are not threatened by the release of highly protected information concerning police investigations. I imagine all members would share those priorities. With that in mind I ask that Justice Levine be given the time he needs to complete his inquiries. In response to Mr David Shoebridge's point as to why the Commissioner of Police has not read the report, I suggest that he take the opportunity to ask the commissioner that himself during the estimates hearings.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer by advising the House whether or not the Government will commit to releasing Justice Levine's report in full when it is received? The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: That was not a supplementary question. It was a new question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As Mr David Shoebridge well knows, the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission is able to print, publish and publicly release his or her own report. I will await Mr Levine's finding, but Mr David Shoebridge can take it from me that I want to make sure that this matter is put to rest once and for all. I am sick and tired of the innuendo, the suggestions of conspiracies. I want to see this matter put to rest just as much as Mr David Shoebridge and all the parties involved do. But I want to ensure that is done by a significant figure who will look at the evidence and make the determinations, not by politicians or others who may well have an interest in the matter.