An Open Letter to Members of the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct

Warwick Raverty

No quick fix is possible. So it is with the people and leadership of Tasmania. Unless the Select Committee ‘report’ to Parliament that more time and much public education is needed on or before the 28th October, I fully expect that ‘the solution’ proposed will be regarded by most Tasmanians as the same old Lab-Lib cohort orchestrating a sham solution that appears to prevent unethical behaviour, but which in reality does not. This will be irrespective of whether of not the solution found by that date is legally sound and robust or not. Unless THE PEOPLE SEE the process and are are given every opportunity to participate, little faith will be restored in the public administration, or the Parliament, no matter what eventuates on October 28th. It is clearly a case where ‘the journey’ is just as important as ‘the destination’.

Honorable Members,

I was honoured to hear the Hon Terry Martin utter the words, ‘IS IT RIGHT?’ at the Tailrace Centre on 29th April 2008. Terry said that the answer to this simple question was his guiding principle in deciding how to cast his vote on Bills before the House, notably the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007.

Terry’s words will stay in my memory as long as I draw breath. I write because I am deeply concerned about what seems to be the indecent (and inappropriate) haste with which the Barlett Government is requiring the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct to report. In particular, the closing date for public comment on 1st August seems entirely inappropriate.

Most of my friends in Tasmania are vitally concerned about improving standards of ethical behaviour in the public sector, yet few of them are even aware of the Select Committee’s activities, let alone its timetable. This lack of awareness certainly DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT to me.

In my view, the proper consideration of how to address the lack of public confidence in government in Tasmania that has been brought about by the recent actions of BOTH major political parties in Tasmania requires time and considerable public input. As it goes to the very root of our democracy, proper and unhurried consideration is even MORE IMPORTANT than even a large pulp mill in my view.

I can see no reason why recommendations on how best to prevent continuation of the more abhorrent governance practices in the last 152 years of Tasmania’s history need to be made in the next 4 months.

Clearly, changing the unethical culture that seems to be rife in sections of Tasmania’s body politic is an important, but complex task.

As a bare minimum, the public needs to be educated and fully engaged in the process being undertaken by the Select Committee. This will require a lot longer than a mere 3 weeks.

In my opinion, it will require a dedicated bus to tour Tasmanian towns and acquaint each region with the issues and potential solutions under consideration. My experience in industry tells me that the faith of the larger body of employees in the leadership of a company for which they work, once shaken by dishonesty and unethical behaviour, takes a long time to restore.

No quick fix is possible.

So it is with the people and leadership of Tasmania. Unless the Select Committee ‘report’ to Parliament that more time and much public education is needed on or before the 28th October, I fully expect that ‘the solution’ proposed will be regarded by most Tasmanians as the same old Lab-Lib cohort orchestrating a sham solution that appears to prevent unethical behaviour, but which in reality does not.

This will be irrespective of whether of not the solution found by that date is legally sound and robust or not. Unless THE PEOPLE SEE the process and are are given every opportunity to participate, little faith will be restored in the public administration, or the Parliament, no matter what eventuates on October 28th. It is clearly a case where ‘the journey’ is just as important as ‘the destination’.

I therefore urge Honorable Members to do everything in their power to persuade the Parliament to both extend the time for public comment for 6 months and to actively consider a government funded education program at least as large as the one Mr Lennon endorsed for the pulp mill proposal.

This is a magnificent opportunity to not only restore public confidence in the Parliament but also to educate the young of your State in the workings of the Parliament and for them to take pride and interest in its proper functioning.

Yours faithfully,

(Dr) Warwick Raverty
Clayton, Victoria