Media release – Guy Barnett, Attorney General, 12 November 2023
Statement from the Attorney-General
On Friday 8 December 2023, I foreshadowed that I would move a motion in This Place calling on her Excellency the Governor to suspend Justice Gregory Geason consistent with the provisions of the Supreme Court (Judges’ Independence) Act 1857.
That statement followed extensive consultation with Members over the preceding week in relation to concerns about the ability for Justice Geason to be suspended from judicial office while he faces criminal proceedings.
As a result of those discussions and Member’s concerns, I agreed, in good faith, to bring that motion to the House as an alternative to introducing bespoke legislation to address the question of the suspension and/or removal of Justice Geason from office.
Over the lunch break, I have briefed the Members of This Place and recently Members of The Other Place specifically about the correspondence sent to all members from Justice Geason’s lawyer raised a constitutional challenge to the motion. I have also shared that advice with correspondence and the specific issues raised in it. and have now shared that advice with all Members of Both Houses.
I would like to thank members for engaging in consultation with my office and my Department in a co-operative and non-partisan way.
The concern that motivated the proposed legislation and the draft motion arose from Justice Geason being charged with two serious family violence related offences: one count of common assault and one count of emotional abuse and intimidation.
Again, I would like to clearly acknowledge that Justice Geason has entered pleas of not guilty to these charges and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
As I have said previously, this situation is unprecedented in Tasmania, and presents challenges that have not previously needed to be addressed. The only reference to the suspension or removal of a judge is section 1 of the Supreme Court (Judges’ Independence) Act 1857. I am advised that the power to suspend is found in the royal prerogative.
As First Law Officer I have, at all times, approached this matter apolitically and pursuant to relevant advice. It is clearly an unusual and complex area of law.
To be clear, I sought advice from Solicitor-General on multiple drafts of the proposed legislation and on a draft motion following consultation with Members and legal stakeholders. I acted in accordance and consistent with that advice at each step.
Over the weekend, Members received further correspondence including opinion from lawyers acting for Justice Geason which raised the prospect of a constitutional challenge to any suspension put in effect by Her Excellency the Governor on the Parliament’s request. Such a legal challenge had not previously been identified by the advice that I received.
I have sought and received preliminary advice from the Solicitor-General in relation to that correspondence.
It is the position of the Government that there is a constitutionally valid power to suspend a judge of the Supreme Court. However, this matter involves complex and untested legal and constitutional issues and will take some time to work through to minimise the risk of constitutional challenge.
My concern, as Attorney-General and First Law Officer, in relation to this matter has always been to ensure that the reputation of the court and the public’s confidence in our justice system is maintained.
Justice Geason is currently on voluntary leave, and as such he retains the right to sit and exercise his powers as judge. It is my view that in circumstances where a judge is facing criminal charges but retains the right to sit as a judge and to exercise their powers, there is a significant risk to the reputation of and confidence in the Court.
On 10 December 2023 his Honour Justice Geason provided a written undertaking to members of Parliament that he will not seek or attempt to exercise the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania whilst the criminal and ancillary proceedings against him are pending.
While that undertaking is not legally enforceable, any breach of that undertaking could be a relevant matter for Parliament to consider in relation to Justice Geason’s conduct at a future time. It is also worth noting that as a judicial officer, Justice Geason’s undertaking is significant.
In light of the written undertaking, I am reassured that he will remain on leave while the charges are resolved. As such and coupled with the prospect of a constitutional challenge, it is my view that the reputation of the Court and confidence in the justice system will be maintained as a result of that undertaking.
In the circumstances I do not consider that it is now necessary or appropriate to move the foreshadowed motion.
We have maintained complete integrity in relation to a very difficult matter, and I hasten to add that we have been acting in good faith and in accordance with advice throughout.
I further emphasise that the very significant development being that Justice Geason signed a written undertaking in terms made public and similar to that which the Government was proposing to move has provided us with a confidence that the integrity of the justice system can be protected. I table to the undertaking so that the Parliament’s record on this issue us complete.
Once again, I thank Members for their engagement in relation to this issue.
Editor’s note: the ridiculous capitalisation of This Place, etc. is the author’s.
Dean Winter MP, Leader of Opposition Business in the House of Assembly, 13 December 2023
Liberals shut down Parliament after losing control
After 10 years in office, there are now serious questions about the Liberal Party’s grip on power after they completely lost control of the Parliament yesterday.
They unilaterally adjourned the House after losing a series of votes—including losing a vote to suspend the sitting—and could not command sufficient control of the chamber to proceed to their own scheduled business.
Tasmanian Labor not only wanted to continue sitting to conclude the debate on the Commission of Inquiry hearings, but wanted to sit again today as well.
Today Guy Barnett would have faced a no-confidence motion and there would have been an inquiry into his handling of the Geason matter. We would have sought to investigate how $1.2 million of taxpayer money was offered to a business with strong Liberal Party connections, and sought to get to the bottom of the Liberals’ planned fire tax.
But none of this will happen now, because the Liberals decided instead to shut down Parliament rather than face the scrutiny they well and truly deserve.
Given the chaos yesterday, there are now serious questions about how much longer this tired, dysfunctional ten-year government will last.
Media release – Rebecca White MP, Tasmanian Labor Leader, 13 December 2023
Labor successful in establishing a parliamentary inquiry to re-examine Premier’s and DPAC Secretary’s evidence
Yesterday Labor successfully moved to establish a parliamentary inquiry to look at the less-than- transparent evidence provided to a Commission of Inquiry parliamentary hearing by the Premier Jeremy Rockliff and his Department Secretary Jenny Gale on Tuesday 5 December.
When asked by the hearing on that day if they had been provided with a list of the 22 public servants that had received Section 18 notifications by the Commission of Inquiry they both stated they had not.
Yet the following day at the hearing involving Justice Secretary Ginna Webster and Attorney General Guy Barnett it was revealed that the Department of Justice had sent the list to all Department Secretaries in April.
The reason for my question to the premier and Ms Gale on December 5 was to find out if people who had section 18 notifications against them were still working with children, or in positions where they could influence policy or implement recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry.
Sadly, what we saw from the Premier and his Secretary was more of the same from a government whose default position is secrecy and lack of transparency, it was disrespectful to victim survivors and not in keeping with the spirit and expectations of those hearings.
The Inquiry will recall the Premier and Ms Gale and re-examine their evidence, interrogate whether they withheld information or mislead the committee with their answers and also seek to understand why so many people have not been made accountable for their actions.
