Sue Neales Mercury commentary
LESSONS in good governance come along all too infrequently in Tasmanian politics. One such classroom was the Supreme Court trial in November 2007 of former deputy premier Bryan Green. It should have been mandatory listening for all existing and aspiring politicians and political staffers. Anyone who attended the eight days of Mr Green’s first trial would have heard a classic case study of how not to run a minister’s office. Read more here
Extracts …
The report concluded there were “inconsistencies”‘ in Mr Lennon’s evidence to the committee, particularly in his recollection of events in March 2007 relating to the $2 billion Gunns pulp mill fast-track.
Mr Kons’ evidence about the Cooper appointment was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, with the conclusion that he was not a credible witness.
…
Much more worrying and critical is the overall conclusion of the report that after 11 years of the Bacon, Lennon and now Bartlett governments, the bureaucracy and public service under Labor has become overly politicised.
It concluded the notion that heads of government departments — the 10 most senior public servants in Tasmania on salary packages well in excess of $300,000 a year — should be apolitical, measured, truthful, ethical and impartial was gone.
It found that both Ms Hornsey and the head of the Justice department, Lisa Hutton, by interfering in or covering up events that had taken place to avoid their discovery by parliament and the media and any subsequent “political criticism”, appeared to have abandoned their duty to act with “honesty, integrity, care and diligence”.
It also found that Ms Hutton had “knowingly provided false and misleading advice” intended to be repeated in parliament, to deflect political criticism from her minister, Steve Kons.
The committee recommended the conduct of both Ms Hornsey, who retired from the Premier’s department in the same month she blocked the Cooper appointment, and Ms Hutton be investigated by the State Services Commissioner for multiple breaches of their conditions of employment.
“It is one thing for a member of the minister’s (political) staff to assist the minister to mislead the House or the public, including clever half truths,” the report noted.
“It is quite another thing for a head of agency (government department) to have done so. It is not constitutionally appropriate for a head of agency to seek to deflect discussion of a judicial appointment process by deliberately concealing and misleading the facts of the process.”
The report is also scathing of how Premier Lennon handed Linda Hornsey — supposedly an apolitical bureaucratic chief — the “unlimited freedom” to interfere in the operations of all and any departments.
“Not only does (handing over this supreme imprimatur) undermine the ability of the ministers to oversee the operations of the departments within their sworn commissions, it undermines the ability of the parliament to hold ministers accountable to the people of Tasmania,” the report concluded.
Damaging stuff.
Now it is up to Premier David Bartlett to act swiftly to show he appreciates there is a problem with how Tasmania’s 28,000-strong public service functions, particularly in its highest ranks.
If public trust in the pillars of government and governance in Tasmania is to be restored — as Mr Bartlett promised on his ascension to the top job last May — there is no time to delay.
