# Badge of Betrayal: The Inquiry Info — And a New Name Emerges

An episode of [Badge of Betrayal](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1852919243), 30 Jun 2026, 16 min.

Audio: https://p.podderapp.com/2544644999/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/2fb3740d-3436-44af-8cc0-a91900716aa5/fbab9570-a7a3-4fd4-a673-b3940044b1b8/1083edf1-5996-4946-ac46-b4790031ef4c/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=2f1fa4b5-119b-41b5-8749-b3940044b5a4

Following the announcement of a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry into police responses to allegations of officer misconduct, child sexual abuse and family violence, this episode explains what the inquiry means for victim survivors, witnesses and anyone considering making a submission. It breaks down how submissions work, what confidentiality means, and what happens if someone is asked to give evidence. The episode also returns to a Right to Information disclosure linked to the Weiss Review, revealing that a deceased former Tasmania Police officer, who has been identified in relation to allegations of sexual abuse from the 1970s and 1980s. If you would like the register your interest in making a submission you can do it at policeinquiry@parliament.tas.gov.au For more details click here See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:10] Speaker 1: Welcome back to Badger Betrayal. The news from last week
[0:12] Speaker 1: has really, as I would have hoped, opened a can
[0:15] Speaker 1: of worms. If you missed it, last week Tasmanian Parliament
[0:19] Speaker 1: announced a parliamentary inquiry into Paul Reynolds and Tasmania Police.
[0:25] Speaker 2: Tasmania Police will soon come under intense scrutiny by a
[0:28] Speaker 2: parliamentary committee. An inquiry has just been established which will
[0:32] Speaker 2: seek to investigate responses... to allegations of officer misconduct relating
[0:37] Speaker 2: to child sexual abuse and family violence.
[0:39] Speaker 1: This announcement means that the victim survivors we've spoken to,
[0:43] Speaker 1: as well as some that we've not, are now able
[0:45] Speaker 1: to make submissions to the inquiry.
[0:48] Speaker 3: Disgraced ex-police officer Paul Reynolds and how he was awarded
[0:52] Speaker 3: a state funeral is expected to be put under the microscope,
[0:56] Speaker 3: but we're told current policies will also be the focus
[0:59] Speaker 3: of questioning.
[1:01] Speaker 1: On the day the inquiry was announced, I had no
[1:03] Speaker 1: less than 10 messages from people we've spoken to who
[1:06] Speaker 1: all wanted to let me know that they were going
[1:09] Speaker 1: to make submissions.
[1:11] Speaker 4: I'm 100% providing a written submission.
[1:15] Speaker 5: I've already messaged three friends who will provide submissions.
[1:19] Speaker 1: Thank you for your hard work on this.
[1:20] Speaker 4: I'm writing my submission now. Please keep going and don't stop.
[1:28] Speaker 1: So in this episode, I really wanted to make it
[1:30] Speaker 1: as simple and easy as possible for anyone wanting to
[1:33] Speaker 1: make a submission. I'm speaking with a number of people
[1:38] Speaker 1: at the moment who have come forward and it's a
[1:40] Speaker 1: really nervous time for them. So if you know someone
[1:44] Speaker 1: that could benefit from the information I'm about to share,
[1:47] Speaker 1: feel free to forward on this episode. This inquiry can
[1:50] Speaker 1: only really succeed if people come forward. One of the
[1:58] Speaker 1: key things people have been asking is what does it
[2:01] Speaker 1: actually mean to make a submission to a parliamentary inquiry?
[2:05] Speaker 1: And the first thing to say is you don't have
[2:07] Speaker 1: to be a lawyer. You actually don't need to be
[2:09] Speaker 1: an academic. You don't have to write some perfect polished document.
[2:13] Speaker 1: A submission is simply your chance to put information before
[2:17] Speaker 1: a parliamentary committee. Now that might be something you experienced.
[2:21] Speaker 1: It might be something you witnessed. It might be documents
[2:24] Speaker 1: that you hold. But there are a few things people
[2:27] Speaker 1: need to know before they do. Firstly, read the terms
[2:29] Speaker 1: of reference. That's the official scope of the inquiry. It
[2:33] Speaker 1: tells you what the committee is allowed to look at.
[2:36] Speaker 1: Your submission doesn't have to cover everything, but it should
[2:39] Speaker 1: connect clearly to at least part of those terms of reference.
[2:44] Speaker 1: For ease, those terms of reference are across four areas. Firstly...
[2:48] Speaker 1: whether the systems, processes and oversight arrangements were adequate when
[2:52] Speaker 1: responding to allegations of serious misconduct within Tasmanian Police. That
[2:57] Speaker 1: includes sexual misconduct and family violence. The second terms of
[3:03] Speaker 1: reference is around the culture of Tasmanian Police when it
[3:06] Speaker 1: comes to matters of allegations of misconduct. The third is
[3:10] Speaker 1: the response from Tasmanian Police and the Tasmanian Government to
[3:13] Speaker 1: the Paul Reynolds matter. That includes the limited scope of
[3:16] Speaker 1: the inquiry into his conduct before the Weiss review and
[3:20] Speaker 1: the decision to hold a police funeral. And fourth are
[3:24] Speaker 1: around any other related matters. So if you're thinking about
[3:29] Speaker 1: making a submission, your information doesn't have to cover all
[3:32] Speaker 1: of those points. It only really needs to be relevant
[3:34] Speaker 1: to one or more of them. For example, you might
[3:38] Speaker 1: have information about how a complaint was handled. You might
[3:41] Speaker 1: have information about police culture. or you might have concerns
[3:45] Speaker 1: about internal investigations, oversight or record keeping. You may also
[3:49] Speaker 1: have information connected to the Paul Reynolds matter, the Weiss review,
[3:53] Speaker 1: or decisions made by the Tasmanian police or the Tasmanian government.
[3:57] Speaker 5: We need to get this review right. We need to
[4:00] Speaker 5: do it once and we need to do it properly
[4:03] Speaker 5: and in a transparent way. And I really am urging
[4:06] Speaker 5: the members of the community that have concerns to please
[4:09] Speaker 5: come forward.
[4:12] Speaker 1: The key... with your submission is to make sure the
[4:15] Speaker 1: connection is clear. Tell the committee members which part of
[4:19] Speaker 1: the terms of reference your submission relates to and then
[4:23] Speaker 1: explain what you know, what you experienced, what documents you
[4:26] Speaker 1: hold or what you believe the committee should investigate. Secondly,
[4:31] Speaker 1: keep it clear. Say who you are, why you're making
[4:34] Speaker 1: the submission, what you know and what you experienced or
[4:38] Speaker 1: what you want the committee to consider. The more information
[4:41] Speaker 1: you have, the easier it is for them to investigate Third,
[4:44] Speaker 1: be careful with allegations. If you're talking about something serious,
[4:47] Speaker 1: especially abuse, misconduct, failures by police or government agencies, or
[4:52] Speaker 1: the actions of named people, try to separate what you
[4:55] Speaker 1: actually know from what you were told, or what you believe.
[5:00] Speaker 1: The fourth thing to be clear of is that you
[5:01] Speaker 1: can ask for confidentiality. If your submission includes sensitive information,
[5:06] Speaker 1: names of victim survivors, identifying details, maybe private family matters,
[5:11] Speaker 1: or anything that could put someone at risk, You can
[5:13] Speaker 1: ask the committee not to publish your name or to
[5:16] Speaker 1: redact parts of the submission or keep the whole thing confidential.
[5:21] Speaker 1: The final decision sits with the committee. And fifth, don't
[5:25] Speaker 1: publish your submission after you send it. What I mean
[5:29] Speaker 1: by that is don't then go and put what you've
[5:33] Speaker 1: given the commission onto Facebook or social media. Parliamentary privilege
[5:37] Speaker 1: can be powerful, but it has limits. Material given to
[5:41] Speaker 1: a committee is... may be protected within parliamentary proceedings. But
[5:45] Speaker 1: repeating the same allegations publicly, on social media, in interviews,
[5:50] Speaker 1: or elsewhere, like a podcast, might not be protected.
[5:54] Speaker 3: The committee will be able to hear submissions confidentially or
[5:57] Speaker 3: through sworn testimonies, which may include Tasmania Police and government
[6:02] Speaker 3: spokespeople being called up to speak.
[6:05] Speaker 1: And parliamentary privilege is one of the reasons why this
[6:08] Speaker 1: inquiry matters. It means people can give evidence to Parliament
[6:11] Speaker 1: in a way that may be legally protected. And finally,
[6:15] Speaker 1: your submission matters. Parliamentary inquiries rely on people coming forward.
[6:20] Speaker 1: Sometimes the missing piece is not another report or another
[6:23] Speaker 1: press conference. Sometimes it's one person saying, this happened, I
[6:28] Speaker 1: reported it and nothing was done. There's one other big
[6:35] Speaker 1: question I keep getting from the people I've been speaking to.
[6:38] Speaker 1: That's whether their evidence will be public or private. The
[6:42] Speaker 1: most parliamentary committee hearings are public by default. That means
[6:46] Speaker 1: members of the public can sit in the room. The
[6:48] Speaker 1: media can attend. What is said can be reported. A
[6:52] Speaker 1: transcript is usually made and that transcript can be published
[6:55] Speaker 1: on the parliament website and in the newspapers. Some hearings
[6:59] Speaker 1: may also be broadcast live and video may be published later.
[7:04] Speaker 1: So when we say a public hearing, we really mean public.
[7:08] Speaker 1: But there is one other option, and it's called giving
[7:10] Speaker 1: evidence in camera. Now that phrase can be confusing because
[7:14] Speaker 1: it sounds like it means that you're on camera, but
[7:17] Speaker 1: it actually means the opposite. In camera means the evidence
[7:21] Speaker 1: is heard in private, behind closed doors. The public's not
[7:24] Speaker 1: there and the media's not allowed. The transcript is confidential.
[7:29] Speaker 1: And the witness is not allowed to talk publicly about
[7:31] Speaker 1: what was said unless the committee gives permission. That's really
[7:34] Speaker 1: important for anyone who may have sensitive information. If your
[7:38] Speaker 1: evidence includes allegations of abuse, child safety concerns, sexual misconduct,
[7:43] Speaker 1: family violence, or the names of victim survivors, or even
[7:46] Speaker 1: legal matters, you can ask the committee to hear that
[7:50] Speaker 1: evidence in private. But the key is, ask before you
[7:55] Speaker 1: give that evidence. And it's as simple as saying to
[7:58] Speaker 1: the committee staff before the hearing, or to the chair
[8:01] Speaker 1: at the start of the hearing, I'd like to give
[8:03] Speaker 1: this part of my evidence in private because it contains
[8:05] Speaker 1: sensitive or identifying information. Committee then decides whether to agree.
[8:11] Speaker 1: The same applies to written submissions. If you want your
[8:13] Speaker 1: name kept private or parts of your submission redacted or
[8:17] Speaker 1: the whole submission kept confidential, you need to say that
[8:20] Speaker 1: clearly before the committee considers publishing it. There is also
[8:24] Speaker 1: a trade-off that you need to know about. If evidence
[8:26] Speaker 1: is kept completely private, the committee may not be able
[8:29] Speaker 1: to use it in its final public report. Sometimes a
[8:33] Speaker 1: committee might ask whether parts of the evidence can be used,
[8:36] Speaker 1: with names removed or with certain details redacted. That's happened
[8:40] Speaker 1: a lot of times. But if everything stays private, it
[8:43] Speaker 1: may help the committee understand what happened, while limiting what
[8:46] Speaker 1: it can say publicly. And finally, to answer a question
[8:52] Speaker 1: that I've been asked by a few people. If anyone
[8:55] Speaker 1: threatens you, pressures you, intimidates you or tries to stop
[8:58] Speaker 1: you from giving evidence or a submission... tell the committee
[9:02] Speaker 1: immediately because witnesses are meant to be protected.
[9:05] Speaker 3: It'll also have powers to request documents be provided that
[9:09] Speaker 3: may have formerly been private to see if the way
[9:12] Speaker 3: that Tasmania Police is responding to family violence and child
[9:15] Speaker 3: sexual abuse matters is adequate or if it needs to
[9:18] Speaker 3: be improved.
[9:20] Speaker 6: To learn and to understand... and to look at other
[9:23] Speaker 6: jurisdictions and understand what measures ought or need to be
[9:29] Speaker 6: taken for Tasmania Police to improve in the future so
[9:32] Speaker 6: concerns that are raised won't happen again.
[9:36] Speaker 1: So what actually happens if you appear at a Parliamentary
[9:39] Speaker 1: Committee hearing? For a lot of people, the idea of
[9:41] Speaker 1: giving evidence can sound intimidating. It can feel like court
[9:45] Speaker 1: and it can feel formal. And yes, there is a process,
[9:48] Speaker 1: but it's also pretty straightforward once you understand what to expect.
[9:53] Speaker 1: You can arrive or log in to a portal, which
[9:56] Speaker 1: you'll be supplied with. You identify yourself. You make a
[10:00] Speaker 1: formal declaration that your evidence is true. You might give
[10:03] Speaker 1: a short opening statement. and then the committee asks questions.
[10:07] Speaker 1: You answer what you can, you provide documents if you
[10:10] Speaker 1: have them and if there's something you can't answer on
[10:12] Speaker 1: the spot you may be able to provide it later.
[10:14] Speaker 1: The important thing to remember is you don't have to
[10:17] Speaker 1: be perfect and you don't need to know everything. You
[10:20] Speaker 1: just need to be honest, clear and careful about what
[10:23] Speaker 1: you know what you experienced, what you were told and
[10:27] Speaker 1: what records you have. We've placed a link to all
[10:29] Speaker 1: the information about the parliamentary inquiry in the show notes.
[10:40] Speaker 1: In the second half of the episode, I want to
[10:42] Speaker 1: take you back to an earlier episode of Badger Betrayal,
[10:46] Speaker 1: where we asked the RTI office to supply details of
[10:49] Speaker 1: some mandatory reporting that came from the Weiss Review. We
[10:53] Speaker 1: submitted an RTI in January of this year and asked
[10:55] Speaker 1: for details of allegations made to TASBOL of child sex offences,
[11:01] Speaker 1: some dating back to 1970. In August of 2025, a
[11:05] Speaker 1: former police officer and Mormon church leader pleaded not guilty
[11:09] Speaker 1: to allegations that he sexually abused multiple young people from
[11:13] Speaker 1: a church across two decades. Recently, he was extradited from
[11:18] Speaker 1: Queensland to face charges following an investigation by Task Force Artemis.
[11:24] Speaker 1: These charges date back from 1963 to 1982. And then
[11:29] Speaker 1: there's another allegation, this time around a 74-year-old ex-Tasmanian police sergeant.
[11:35] Speaker 7: Detectives from Tasmania have travelled to Queensland to charge a
[11:38] Speaker 7: 74-year-old former police sergeant with child sex offences. The charge
[11:42] Speaker 7: relates to abuse allegedly committed in the 1980s when the
[11:46] Speaker 7: man was a serving Tasmania police officer.
[11:51] Speaker 1: We've heard numerous times in this podcast that some people
[11:54] Speaker 1: believe there is a pedophile ring in Tasmania. It's been
[11:58] Speaker 1: operating in the north of the state for decades. There
[12:01] Speaker 1: have been allegations made to this podcast that involve some
[12:04] Speaker 1: members of TASPOL as well as other government institutions. So
[12:10] Speaker 1: back to this RTI disclosure, let me take you back
[12:12] Speaker 1: to the earlier episode to explain what we're looking for.
[12:15] Speaker 1: As we head back to that table that outlines the
[12:18] Speaker 1: seven referrals that were made to TASPOL from the Weiss report,
[12:21] Speaker 1: line five of the document shows another interesting entry. These
[12:26] Speaker 1: allegations stem from a police officer accused of sexual abuse
[12:29] Speaker 1: between the 1970s and the 1980s. The status of this
[12:33] Speaker 1: allegation is that the police officer is deceased. Now, we've
[12:38] Speaker 1: reached out with another RTI to ask details on this entry.
[12:42] Speaker 1: We don't believe this has been reported on to date.
[12:45] Speaker 1: We also don't believe this is Reynolds as he was
[12:47] Speaker 1: already dead before the Weiss inquiry. So it was a
[12:51] Speaker 1: line in row 5 and it related to sexual abuse
[12:54] Speaker 1: across the 1970s and the 80s. From this document we're
[12:58] Speaker 1: able to establish that the person was a police officer
[13:00] Speaker 1: at the relevant time and was also now deceased. We
[13:05] Speaker 1: wanted to know more about this officer and the RTI
[13:08] Speaker 1: office was able to accommodate. We can now confirm the
[13:16] Speaker 1: officer was a man called Rex Klein. He started in
[13:19] Speaker 1: Tazpol in 1951. A year later, Mr Klein was seriously
[13:24] Speaker 1: injured when his motorbike collided with a tram in Moona.
[13:29] Speaker 4: A 22-year-old police constable was seriously injured in Hobart last
[13:33] Speaker 4: night when a collision occurred between his motorcycle and a
[13:36] Speaker 4: train at Moona. He was Constable Rex Cline, who has
[13:40] Speaker 4: only been in the police force a little over a year,
[13:43] Speaker 4: and who was on his way home from duty when
[13:45] Speaker 4: a head-on collision occurred with the crowded outward-bound train. It
[13:49] Speaker 4: is believed that he was thrown into the air and
[13:51] Speaker 4: landed on his head, suffering injuries which necessitated his immediate
[13:55] Speaker 4: removal to the Royal Hobart Hospital, where his condition late
[13:58] Speaker 4: last night was described as still serious. The motorcycle was
[14:02] Speaker 4: badly damaged, but the train, which took most of the
[14:05] Speaker 4: impact on its front bumper bar, was able to proceed.
[14:09] Speaker 1: A few weeks later, another article was released.
[14:12] Speaker 8: Constable Rex Klein, 22, of Newtown, who was badly injured
[14:17] Speaker 8: in a road accident on Thursday, was out of danger
[14:20] Speaker 8: last night, the Royal Hobart Hospital reported. The hospital gave
[14:25] Speaker 8: Klein's condition as satisfactory. Klein was admitted after the motorcycle
[14:30] Speaker 8: he was riding.
[14:34] Speaker 1: Mr Klein, through his career as a police officer, became
[14:38] Speaker 1: a first class constable in 1971 and he was stationed
[14:41] Speaker 1: across Hobart, Glenorchy, Newtown, Woodbridge and again in Hobart he
[14:47] Speaker 1: ended up in the special branch of the Commissioner's Office
[14:50] Speaker 1: in 1982. Now the special branch at the Commissioner's Office
[14:58] Speaker 1: is what you think it sounds like. It wasn't a
[15:00] Speaker 1: suburban police station posting. Special Branch sat inside the most
[15:04] Speaker 1: confidential corners of policing, gathering intelligence, liaising with security agencies
[15:10] Speaker 1: and briefing the Commissioner on matters considered sensitive, political or
[15:15] Speaker 1: high risk. On the 4th of July 1990, Mr Klein
[15:21] Speaker 1: retired from the police. Then less than a year later,
[15:27] Speaker 1: he died on June 8, 1991. I can't verify why Mr.
[15:36] Speaker 1: Klein retired and then died a short time later. I
[15:40] Speaker 1: can't also verify what happened about the allegations of child
[15:43] Speaker 1: sexual abuse stemming from the 70s and 80s. We have
[15:48] Speaker 1: asked for further disclosure from Right to Information and we're
[15:51] Speaker 1: hoping that sheds more light. If you have information you'd
[15:57] Speaker 1: like to share with us about this or anything you've
[15:59] Speaker 1: heard on the podcast, you can always reach out anonymously
[16:02] Speaker 1: at Podshape at proton.me. I'll put a link to that
[16:07] Speaker 1: email in the show notes. If you'd like to make
[16:21] Speaker 1: a submission to the inquiry, we have a link in
[16:23] Speaker 1: the episode notes to register your interest.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.