Matt Cunningham opinion: ICAC’s role in Zach Rolfe investigation to be revealed

Zachary Rolfe referring a complaint against a detective to ICAC should have been unnecessary, writes Matt Cunningham.

NT Police this week referred a complaint made by former constable Zachary Rolfe about the investigation that saw him face a Supreme Court trial for murder to the anti-corruption watchdog. This was an intriguing decision.

On the face of it, this would seem like the proper and sensible thing to do.

There are, as some recent cases have shown, some real problems with police investigating police.

But history would suggest this referral should have been unnecessary.

Short memories are a great asset for people who hold positions of power in this curious jurisdiction. But those who have been here more than a few years will remember the events that transpired in the week after Rolfe shot dead Kumanjayi Walker at Yuendumu in

Zach Rolfe referred a complaint against a former Detective to ICAC this week.

November 2019.

To address community concerns about police investigating police, it was announced that the Office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption would oversee the police investigation.

Those plans took a strange turn when Commissioner Ken Fleming KC stood up at a rally in Alice Springs two days after Rolfe had been charged with murder and told the crowd: “One of the most important messages today is Black Lives Matter. Anybody who says contrary to that is guilty of corrupt behaviour.”

Fleming was quickly accused of bias and forced to stand down from any involvement in the Office of the ICAC’s role overseeing the police investigation.

We were assured, however, that this oversight role would still happen.

In a statement, the Office of the ICAC said this oversight would continue through a “team of specialist investigators, lawyers and technical experts with significant experience managing major crime investigations, as well as serious and complex investigations”. Sounds impressive. But while we didn’t know it at the time, we would soon learn that the ICAC had a tendency to over-promise and underdeliver. The report Fleming said may “fill all of your hopes and longings” was so deeply flawed it had to be removed from the ICAC’s website.

So what happened with this fancy team of experts overseeing the Rolfe investigation? Well, from what we can gather, not much.

Current Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Michael Riches says a report into their oversight of the Rolfe investigation would be released.

The current Commissioner, Michael Riches, offered a clue to this in his report into allegations of political interference that was tabled in Parliament last month.

“Shortly after Mr Rolfe’s acquittal in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the former Police Commissioner (Jamie Chalker) called me,” Mr Riches wrote.

“He asked that I confirm my office had been overseeing the Northern Territory Police Investigation in respect of Mr Rolfe. I told him on that occasion that I was not aware of any such oversight.”

You can understand why Mr Chalker wanted to know. His tenure as commissioner was hampered from day one by accusations of interference in the investigation – accusations he repeatedly rejected.

Real or imagined, these accusations caused a morale crisis that eventually led to Mr Chalker’s exit. But if the anti-corruption watchdog had properly overseen the investigation, it would surely have known if something untoward had occurred.

We can only assume the Office of the ICAC was too busy secretly recording conversations, hauling in journalists and slapping them with gag orders, and engaging in acts of retribution against those trying to hold them to account to deal with the seemingly less important business of overseeing one of the most controversial police investigations in the Northern Territory’s history.

In response to questions about this issue, Mr Riches said: “I intend to prepare a separate document that addresses the role played by this office. That document will include recommendations about the role this office should play in respect of future critical incidents.” That document will also address the extent of any oversight provided by this office in respect of the Rolfe investigation.”

We wait with bated breath for that report.

For if the Office of the ICAC has failed to perform its duty, how many lives have been impacted as a result?

Would Zachary Rolfe still have faced a Supreme Court trial for murder?

Would Jamie Chalker still have his job?

And how many millions of taxpayer dollars would have been saved?