Mr BURKE - 2002-08-22
You would be aware of the news reports of results of the Ombudsman’s investigation into Correctional Services tabled earlier in this session. You also have access to the reports by the Commissioner of Correctional Services relating to this matter, his investigation of the issue, his response to the Ombudsman’s draft report, and his reaction to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. I am speaking specifically about complaint B, which is in three parts. However, in fact, in terms of the finding regarding complaint B, it is quite limited and, to my mind, unsubstantiated. In the interest of natural justice, can you confirm to this House that none of these reports have found that the previous CLP government or ministers were in any way involved in the tapping of prison officers’ telephone calls, as stated in the NT News on two occasions? What action have you taken or do you intend to take in relation to this issue?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his question. First of all, I can outline the process that the Ombudsman followed in investigating this matter. The first thing he had done over the four years of this investigation was to produce an interim report and present that to my department for response, after which he then finalised the report that was tabled in this parliament during these sittings.
I can report that, when you look at the matter of complaint B, between the two reports that the Ombudsman produced there is an inconsistency regarding the matter of whether the minister of the day, Eric Poole, was directly informed or involved in this activity in the prison. The report of March 2002, the first of the two reports, specifies in relation to complaint B which is basically asking whether the tapes of recorded telephone conversations between prison officers regarding industrial relations matters pertaining to the ASCC were provided to the then Minister for Correctional Services, the Hon Eric Poole MLA. In answer to that question, his finding in the first report, and I will read it out:
I cannot specifically sustain the complaint as originally made to me in respect to tapes or transcripts of tapes being
made available to the minister.
To the extent that that deals specifically with that part of the question, it is inconsistent with the finding of the report of June 2002, which we tabled in this parliament, which states as a finding for complaint B:
… it is my view that this complaint has been substantiated …
So it is a generic response to a series of questions that constituted complaint B:
… and I am of the opinion that there was administrative action which was taken that was both unreasonable and appears
to have been taken contrary to the law pursuant to section(1)(a) and (b) of the act.
I will incorporate both the section of the first and second reports that deal with these matters so that it is on record in Hansard.
[Editor’s note: See appendix at page 357.]
In terms of what we are going to do about this matter, the Ombudsman has found very clearly, in both of his reports, that there were provisions of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, which were contravened by the activities that were shown to have occurred in the system at the time. Subsequently, I have asked my department to forward the reports to the Australian Federal Police. If the Australian Federal Police can now investigate these activities, and if they find that the Commonwealth act has been contravened in an illegal way, then obviously they can take action under their law.
I also report to the parliament what action we have taken to prevent a reoccurrence of what happened in 1996. In 1998, the current commissioner, on finding the legal requirements under the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 had not been met, and that proper procedures and systems necessary to control and monitor the use of the system had not been developed and documented, directed the system be shut down and gave an undertaking that it would not be reactivated.
NT Correctional Services is now installing a Star~NET prisoner telephone system, similar to those used around Australia, which has a monitoring capacity for prisoner telephone calls. The new system has safeguards to ensure accountability, auditability and privacy of calls to legal representation and to the Ombudsman.
Legal advice has been obtained to confirm that the Star~NET telephone system complies with Commonwealth and Territory legislative requirements. The system is a stand alone network and is not linked to the normal business telephone network. The Commissioner of Correctional Services has sent the operational procedures for the system and the users manual to the Ombudsman for comment. It has also made an undertaking to the Ombudsman that the monitoring function will not be implemented until satisfactory procedural guidelines are in place to ensure the integrity and accountability of the system. The system’s audit functions will also be checked regularly to confirm that, in fact, no monitoring has taken place before all process issues are settled. The system will, certainly as a major benefit, improve prisoner communication with family members, which has been a long-standing problem in our prisons.
I can assure the member that we are working very hard now to make sure, in the term of this government, that we do not see a repetition of the events that occurred. I am quite happy to send over an excerpt of those two reports to you now.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, could I ask a supplementary?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I will allow a supplementary.
Mr BURKE: It is an important subject. But to confirm on what you have said, minister. In the first report of the Ombudsman, the allegation against the CLP government and the minister was unsubstantiated, and in the second report there is no reference to the government or the minister. Is that the end result of your understanding of the matter?
Dr TOYNE: Well, to be absolutely clear, the excerpt I read out clearly says that the Ombudsman could find no sustainable evidence to say that the minister had been given the tapes that were taken from the phone tapping.
In the response to complaint B in the second report, it is a generic response to three separate questions. It does not deal specifically with the matter of whether the minister did or did not receive the tapes. I take that to mean that, if he has not refuted the first report’s findings, that you would probably say, at the very least, it is an open finding.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his question. First of all, I can outline the process that the Ombudsman followed in investigating this matter. The first thing he had done over the four years of this investigation was to produce an interim report and present that to my department for response, after which he then finalised the report that was tabled in this parliament during these sittings.
I can report that, when you look at the matter of complaint B, between the two reports that the Ombudsman produced there is an inconsistency regarding the matter of whether the minister of the day, Eric Poole, was directly informed or involved in this activity in the prison. The report of March 2002, the first of the two reports, specifies in relation to complaint B which is basically asking whether the tapes of recorded telephone conversations between prison officers regarding industrial relations matters pertaining to the ASCC were provided to the then Minister for Correctional Services, the Hon Eric Poole MLA. In answer to that question, his finding in the first report, and I will read it out:
I cannot specifically sustain the complaint as originally made to me in respect to tapes or transcripts of tapes being
made available to the minister.
To the extent that that deals specifically with that part of the question, it is inconsistent with the finding of the report of June 2002, which we tabled in this parliament, which states as a finding for complaint B:
… it is my view that this complaint has been substantiated …
So it is a generic response to a series of questions that constituted complaint B:
… and I am of the opinion that there was administrative action which was taken that was both unreasonable and appears
to have been taken contrary to the law pursuant to section(1)(a) and (b) of the act.
I will incorporate both the section of the first and second reports that deal with these matters so that it is on record in Hansard.
[Editor’s note: See appendix at page 357.]
In terms of what we are going to do about this matter, the Ombudsman has found very clearly, in both of his reports, that there were provisions of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, which were contravened by the activities that were shown to have occurred in the system at the time. Subsequently, I have asked my department to forward the reports to the Australian Federal Police. If the Australian Federal Police can now investigate these activities, and if they find that the Commonwealth act has been contravened in an illegal way, then obviously they can take action under their law.
I also report to the parliament what action we have taken to prevent a reoccurrence of what happened in 1996. In 1998, the current commissioner, on finding the legal requirements under the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 had not been met, and that proper procedures and systems necessary to control and monitor the use of the system had not been developed and documented, directed the system be shut down and gave an undertaking that it would not be reactivated.
NT Correctional Services is now installing a Star~NET prisoner telephone system, similar to those used around Australia, which has a monitoring capacity for prisoner telephone calls. The new system has safeguards to ensure accountability, auditability and privacy of calls to legal representation and to the Ombudsman.
Legal advice has been obtained to confirm that the Star~NET telephone system complies with Commonwealth and Territory legislative requirements. The system is a stand alone network and is not linked to the normal business telephone network. The Commissioner of Correctional Services has sent the operational procedures for the system and the users manual to the Ombudsman for comment. It has also made an undertaking to the Ombudsman that the monitoring function will not be implemented until satisfactory procedural guidelines are in place to ensure the integrity and accountability of the system. The system’s audit functions will also be checked regularly to confirm that, in fact, no monitoring has taken place before all process issues are settled. The system will, certainly as a major benefit, improve prisoner communication with family members, which has been a long-standing problem in our prisons.
I can assure the member that we are working very hard now to make sure, in the term of this government, that we do not see a repetition of the events that occurred. I am quite happy to send over an excerpt of those two reports to you now.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, could I ask a supplementary?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I will allow a supplementary.
Mr BURKE: It is an important subject. But to confirm on what you have said, minister. In the first report of the Ombudsman, the allegation against the CLP government and the minister was unsubstantiated, and in the second report there is no reference to the government or the minister. Is that the end result of your understanding of the matter?
Dr TOYNE: Well, to be absolutely clear, the excerpt I read out clearly says that the Ombudsman could find no sustainable evidence to say that the minister had been given the tapes that were taken from the phone tapping.
In the response to complaint B in the second report, it is a generic response to three separate questions. It does not deal specifically with the matter of whether the minister did or did not receive the tapes. I take that to mean that, if he has not refuted the first report’s findings, that you would probably say, at the very least, it is an open finding.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016