The ACT government has refused to explain whether it has backed a police push to be exempt from a proposed anti-corruption commission, after a series of emails have raised fresh questions on the issue.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The documents, released under Freedom of Information laws, reveal a meeting between Chief Police Officer Justine Saunders and Police Minister Mick Gentleman in April, in which Assistant Commissioner Saunders outlined ACT Policing's "approach" on the commission.
A largely redacted email CPO Saunders sent two days later said that Mr Gentleman supported police making an independent submission to a parliamentary inquiry examining the proposed commission and that he "supports my approach, which is to focus on".
But the next part of the email, which outlines the detail of that "approach", was redacted on the grounds it was about an internal "deliberative process", which may indicate she was referring to a discussion on the exemption issue.
The police have been pushing hard to be left out of the proposed new anti-corruption commission, despite several prominent witnesses telling the inquiry that police must be covered.
Police have refused to explain what the specific details in that redacted email were, while Mr Gentleman also did not respond when asked if he supported police on the exemption issue during the meeting.
Instead, his spokesman said in a statement the government "will await the committee's findings before finalising a position".
"Minister Gentleman supported ACT Policing making an independent submission to the committee, so that ACT Policing could put forward their views to the committee," he said.
Other emails show the Australian Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity and ACT Policing, through the federal police, shared parts or all of their submissions with the other agency, with similar sharing between the territory government and the police, before sending them to the inquiry.
Sharing such information is common between government agencies, to ensure "technical accuracy" on issues that cross jurisdictions.
But the emails also show ACT Policing used details from an extract of the commission's draft submission to sharpen its arguments in favour of an exemption.
One such email, sent by CPO Saunders on May 15, days before the committee's initial deadline for submissions, said: "This is a good submission by ACLEI.".
"Our submission should have a similar level of specificity re our relationship with ACLEI and the benefits of maintaining the current regime," CPO Saunders wrote.
Another, sent by a senior staffer in the AFP's legislation program the same day, said that "essentially, ACLEI are confirming the status quo (ie that ACT Pol should stay in ACLEI jurisdiction even if an ACT ICAC established)".
"My sense is that the AFP would not have any issues with this approach," that email reads.
While the commission said it did not provide any comments to the AFP, and the AFP did not provide comments back to it, emails show the commission sought "AFP views" on its extract.
One email, sent by an AFP staffer on March 27 this year, said that "ACLEI intend to put in a submission saying ACT Policing should stay under ACLEI jurisdiction" and that "They are keen for AFP views before proceeding".
Another, sent on May 16, shows the territory's Deputy Chief Police Officer, Commander John Bourke, writing back to CPO Saunders and others, that the commission's submission extract was "endorsed for return" to ACLEI.
The territory government, ACT Policing and the commission all said sharing of such information between agencies was common, in order to identify inaccuracies and ensure "technical accuracy" on cross-jurisdictional issues.
An ACT Policing spokesman also said any discussion with Mr Gentleman's office was "to provide visibility of ACT Policing's intention to develop an independent submission" and later to provide a copy "as a courtesy".
