The Justice Alan Blow inquiry into senior police appointments under former commissioner Michael Murphy has found the promotion and appointment processes “have many shortcomings” that need to be addressed immediately while also exposing a war within the senior ranks of the NT Police over unresolved allegations of favouritism, bias and “undeclared or unmanaged conflicts of interest” that is continuing to affect the police’s culture and morale.

But Justice Blow concluded because he was not appointed a commissioner under the Inquiries Act – and therefore it was not a proper inquiry – he could not compel witnesses to answer questions and in turn could not reach any final conclusions about the serious allegations raised.

“However, it is clear that the processes undertaken by selection panels need to be significantly improved,” he wrote, including that there is no proper recruitment policy for senior positions, that recruitment selection panel reports were not being kept properly, other recruitment paperwork was missing, panel members refused to answer questions and some had not disclosed conflicts of interest.

Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro ordered the review after sacking Mr Murphy in March, following an ICAC report that found he was “incompetent and negligent” in relation to hiring a mate for an assistant commissioner role and that he misused public resources and failed to properly manage a conflict of interest.

Despite having the Blow report for more than a month, it is unclear why it was released today by Acting Police Minister Gerard Maley while Ms Finocchiaro is on extended leave.

In his review, Justice Blow concluded that 28 officers appointed to the rank of superintendent and above – including then-deputy commissioner Martin Dole – had “sufficient merit to be appointed to the relevant rank”, but that he was “not in a position to make judgments as to whether each of them was the most suitable person” for the relevant rank and position.

“There exists a body of opinion within the senior ranks to the effect that some individuals were not the most suitable for the positions to which they were appointed,” Justice Blow wrote.

“Improvement of the legislation, policies and practices in relation to such appointments is essential in order to restore faith in the promotion and appointment processes.”

The issue of appointing senior officers to take on higher duties in acting roles and the delays in filling those higher roles permanently also needs to be addressed, he wrote.

Instead of being sworn in under the Inquiries Act, which would have given Justice Blow far greater powers, Acting Police Commissioner Martin Dole signed “an instrument of delegation” that permitted Justice Blow to obtain some documents and information from “members and staff of the NT Police”.

Twenty-five police officers who were not promoted made written submissions, the majority of which were kept confidential.

But because the inquiry was not a real inquiry under the Inquiries Act, Justice Blow determined not to interview anyone “whose conduct had been called into question”. He added there was no way to determine facts or “comparisons of credibility”.

While he sent “controversial material” to the members of six recruitment panels in which allegations were made – which may have involved more than 20 people – only six individuals responded.

He wrote while it is not uncommon for people who don’t get the job to complain, “it is a matter of concern that so many senior officers expressed concerns about such matters in the course of this review”.

“Some of the 24 unsuccessful applicants expressed concern to me about favouritism, bias, close friendships between panel members and applicants, some applicants getting assistance from panel members before interviews, and inconsistency of treatment,” Justice Blow wrote.

“On the other hand, the panel members who responded to my invitations to comment shared no such concerns. Acting Deputy Commissioner Matthew Hollamby said that in his view 28 good people were rightly promoted.”

Justice Blow added that “a significant number of senior officers believe that some of the recruitment outcomes favoured individuals with whom panel members had worked closely with”, that one senior officer said “nepotism is simply out of control”, and that some officers were promised promotions before the jobs were open.

Those who were put on higher duties for temporary roles solely by the commissioner’s order were also given preference, senior members said, and in many instances the successful applicants were friends or close friends of panel members who had “[gone] on holidays together”.

Justice Blow said the alleged favouritism had “affected the culture and morale of the NT Police”.

“I was told of a reduction of trust within the agency and of a belief that some members had been promoted beyond their capabilities,” he wrote.

“One officer spoke of widespread disengagement, weakened morale and reduced confidence in the executive leadership.”

He added the unresolved issues led to “a number of senior officers” experiencing “heightened anxiety, depression, self-doubt, sleeplessness, embarrassment and stress”, with one senior officer taking a long period of personal leave and others being transferred out.

Three assistant commissioner roles

In relation to the hiring of three assistant commissioners between January 22, 2024 and February 11, 2024, Justice Blow wrote that while there was no proper recruitment policy for the positions, police used elements of the NT Public Service Recruitment and Selection Policy.

In this case, a ministerial briefing was prepared for the then-police minister from the commissioner recommending the selected applicants for the job. But Justice Blow found that while the minister was provided the names of the three successful candidates, as well as other information, they were “unlikely to have been provided with a copy of a selection report” and that NT Police could not confirm if Murphy “engaged in any verbal briefings with the minister regarding the proposed appointments”.

The report was not provided to the “decision-maker”, Blow found, adding that “I do not consider the commissioner provided the minister with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the assistant commissioner appointments”.

“I find the lack of policy clarity in this area to be of significant concern,” he wrote. “Once again, there is no evidence that panel members completed conflict of interest forms or discussed or managed any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

“Despite this, Commissioner Murphy did in fact have a conflict of interest that he failed to manage [referred to in the ICAC report].”

That incident involved Mr Murphy hiring his mate Peter Kennon for the A/C role while failing to manage his conflict of interest. Importantly, Justice Blow said he had “no reason to doubt the correctness of [the ICAC delegate’s] conclusions” surrounding Mr Murphy.

Justice Blow also found the selection report for the assistant commissioners did not provide details or the reasons why the panel selected the three candidates, only stating the three were “assessed as meeting the requirements of the rank of assistant commissioner”, which did not “name or compare any applicants”. There was also no record of referees being contacted or if they were, what they said.

“The lack of comparative analysis in the report makes it difficult to understand why some applicants were recommended over others whereas the report should make these reasons clear,” Blow wrote.

A similar process was followed for appointing Martin Dole as deputy commissioner in March 2024, the report found.

Murphy chaired the panel, but was incorrectly listed as the “delegate” for the Administrator, who signs off on the deputy commissioner appointment. Blow found the police minister and the Administrator were provided an extract of text from the selection report regarding Mr Dole’s suitability for the job, but not a full copy of the selection report.

“It is again unclear why the full report was not provided to the Minister,” Justice Blow wrote.

“As with the assistant commissioner process, NT Police advised that the selection report was drafted for ‘internal purposes’ so that the vacancy could be advertised on the eRecruit platform.

“Even though the recruitment processes undertaken at around the same time by the same commissioner, there is a significant discrepancy in the information provided to the minister in the assistant commissioner process and the Administrator in the deputy commissioner process. This highlights the need for clear policy guidance in this area.

“Once again the comments in the selection report are so vague and general that it is difficult to understand why the successful applicant was chosen and some others were not.”

Commander recruitment process ‘not in accordance with best practice’

In relation to the five commander positions hired under Murphy, Justice Blow found two of three panel members had completed the “merit selection training course”, but not a mysterious third who was not identified.

All three panel members were also referees for at least one of the applicants, against NTPS recruitment policy, which Justice Blow said while not against the law, the policy did apply, and “it should be noted that what happened was not in accordance with best practice”.

He also noted there was no evidence that the panel members completed conflict of interest forms or properly managed potential conflicts of interest and that once again, the selection report made it “difficult to understand what matters the selection panel took into account in making [its] decisions”.

A similar situation occurred for the 18 superintendents hired in June 2024, with Justice Blow highlighting that “merit is not the overarching principle” for promotion. He added he could not find what the relevant principles were for hiring superintendents, only that the commissioner “may promote a member if satisfied the member has superior merit to the other applicants”.

The selection report was in unsigned draft from, the review found. In one instance, a panel member declared they had a conflict of interest with one of the applicants but the declaration was not recorded in the selection report.

In another instance, Mr Dole declared he had a “potential” conflict of interest in relation to two superintendent applicants, but the selection report notes state the panel agreed it could manage that by having three other independent panel members, but also did not provide detail as to the nature of the conflict. The panel did not complete a conflict of interest declaration despite Mr Dole’s declaration.

Dole hired lawyers to respond to inquiry’s questions

Justice Blow found a common theme in the complaints about the recruitment process was that it fell short of the NT Public Service recruitment policy and standards. He concluded that was a “significant policy gap that must be addressed if members are to have trust in the promotions process”.

It was also determined that there is no mechanism for senior members above senior sergeant to have promotion decisions reviewed, which Blow said “limits the accountability of the Commissioner and selection panel members”. It also explained why no members formally disputed any of the appointments that Murphy made.

Justice Blow wrote that he was advised by someone in the NT Police that process reviews in respect to the merit of an applicant were not available because “merit is not the ‘over-arching principle’ for promotions” for superintendent and higher roles.

However, Mr Dole later responded that “merit is the primary criterion for promotion” and that “subsidiary factors include matters limited to an officer’s availability for deployment and the overall needs of the Police Force”.

It was later revealed in the report that Mr Dole provided his comments through lawyers from workplace law firm Kingston Reid.

Mr Dole’s lawyers rejected any complaints made against Mr Dole by senior officers, which were not entirely clear. Justice Blow included the law firm’s comments in his report.

“Publishing vague grievances such as these achieves nothing, other than to unfairly impugn the reputation of all those officers who were successfully appointed, even if they were not the subject of criticisms made to you,” the lawyer wrote on behalf of Mr Dole.

“Undermining the authority of leaders in this way has the real potential to discourage good people from continuing to serve in the Northern Territory Police Force and impede its capacity to fulfill its primary duty to protect the community.”

Justice Blow acknowledged he was unable to provide more details on the criticisms because of his limitations due to the way Ms Finocchiaro appointed him and initiated the “inquiry”.

Justice Blow made six recommendations, including that the NT Police develop and introduce a written policy regarding recruitment and appointment processes (a recommendations also made by the ICAC); that conflicts of interest are dealt with properly including declaring and managing; that the decision maker of the appointment not sit on the panel and that proper documentation be recorded; that merit become “the primary criterion for an appointment”; and that acting appointments should be bound by a proper written policy and limited in duration.

He added there were a “number of other areas of potential reform that have been identified in the course of this review” that should be examined.

Acting Police Minister Gerard Maley said the government would “consider” the recommendations.