Health
The lonely whistleblowers. Girl’s best interests? Vengeful bureaucracy? Audit ordered
Dr Frank Nicklason
Sue Neales in her Mercury Saturday column (16/10, excerpts, link, below) considers the failure of Children’s Commissioner Paul Mason to be reappointed to his position at the end of his three year term.
Neales wonders whether Mason’s non-reappointment may be a case of ‘shooting the messenger’ by a ‘vengeful bureaucracy, determined to payback an independent official for daring to reveal how badly and systemically three departments and many public servants had failed a (12 year-old) girl in their care.’
Commissioner Mason wrote a report alleging failures of bureaucratic systems and policies in the areas of child protection, police, and schools.
He also made suggestions for improvement.
Even setting aside the details of the Mason case it has certainly been the case that those raising matters of public interest and concern in Tasmania in the last two decades have not always enjoyed a sympathetic hearing. Just consider the experiences of Dr David Obendorf who raised concerns about the downgrading of public veterinary pathology services or forester Bill Manning who was deeply troubled by unprosecuted breaches of the Forest Practices Code whilst working as Forest Practices Officer with the Forest Practices Board.
More recently Dr Alison Bleaney has had to face great difficulty in getting taken seriously in relation to her concerns about the safety of the St Helens water supply.
But we should not think that these experiences are peculiar to Tasmania.
Barbara Ehrenreich, in a sharp and extensively researched recent book called Smile or Die (Granta 2009), would likely see these events as part of a now global, infatuation with positive thinking, at the expense of considering, and addressing reality, using critical evidence-based analysis.
Whether in private business or in the public service it seems the pressure is, too often, on us to deliver a positive message regardless of the facts.
Ehrenreich asserts that ‘realism – to the point of defensive pessimism – is a prerequisite for human survival’.
Metternich
The public debate about the young girl prostituted by her mother, and subsequently tossed around like a political football by all and sundry, is now focussing on the decision to replace the Children’s Commissioner amid suspicions that he is being pushed off-stage by an embarrassed government.
But the current Commissioner’s report into this appalling situation contained mutually exclusive advice regarding the best interests of the young girl, and raised questions about whether the Commissioner was actually aware of the effects that his report would have on this situation.
In recommendation number nine of his report, the Commissioner stated:
“That after an appropriate period of further investigation the Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1995 advise the Governor to appoint a Commissioner of Inquiry to review the decisions of the Crown in relation to the prosecution or otherwise of persons suspected of having had intercourse or indecent dealings with the subject child in order to address any public concerns about the probity of such decisions.” [emphasis mine]
But in the Executive Summary of the same report, the Commissioner said:
“Not much of this Report will be publishable, because it relies on detail of what happened in the life of the Subject Child and not only is it prohibited to disclose information that would tend to identify her, but she and at least one of her siblings are now acutely aware that their story did become public property and want the prurient fascination with it to end, so that they and their little sibling can create normal lives for themselves and their own future families.” [emphasis mine]
If the Commissioner is aware that the girl in question wants the “prurient fascination” with this case to end, and that she doesn’t want to have to give evidence in court against the men involved, why has he recommended establishing a Commission of Inquiry in order to “address public concerns”? What about her concerns? And what happened to her best interests in relation to recommendation number nine?
While everyone in this case continually says they have the best interests of the girl at heart, are her interests actually being protected by a report which recommends a course of action that she is widely known to oppose, and that is put forward only on the basis of addressing “public concerns”? In my opinion recommendation number nine goes directly against the best interests of this child, and should never have been included in this report.
Sue Neales, Mercury Saturday
…
And it looks even worse now, knowing that Ms Thorp was well aware Mr Mason was a goner several weeks ago but had failed to tell him or even treat him courteously.
Instead, the Children’s Minister waited until Thursday to ask Mr Mason to come to a dingy room in the bowels of Parliament House to be told his job was not going to be renewed and would end in just six days.
At the same time, the media were being told of Ms Ashford’s appointment as the next children’s commissioner.
Mr Mason has since said his treatment was shabby.
It was that and more.
It looked particularly mean, nasty and petty considering Mr Mason had gone out of his way just a few days earlier to graciously defend the embattled Ms Thorp as widespread cries for her resignation grew stronger.
Just as appalling was the reaction of a bullying Premier to anyone who dared ask questions about why Mr Mason had failed to be reappointed, with Mr Bartlett making accusations of deliberate slurs on the integrity of the selection panel.
Rubbish. They are valid questions driven by the make-up of the panel itself.
How can the three departmental chiefs be expected to have Chinese walls in their heads when choosing the next Children’s Commissioner?
Effectively, they were being asked to separate Mr Mason’s application for the job from their own, understandable, professional angst and anger at the harshness of his criticisms of their own departments and managerial oversight.
It was always going to be an impossible task for even the most scrupulously fair-minded.
Underlying all the specific issues relating to the girl’s tragic case, and even Mr Mason’s dumping, is the bigger issue of appropriate government appointments.
This latest questionable example of cronyism and favouritism, even without the issue of how truly independent, objective and fearless Ms Ashford can be given her internal departmental background within children’s services, was the last thing the Bartlett Government needed right now.
Read Sue Neales’ full comment, HERE
First published: 2010-10-18 03:45 AM
Audit ordered:
David Bartlett, MP
Premier
Monday, 18 October 2010
Audit Requested Into Children’s Commissioner Appointment
The Premier, David Bartlett, today said he’d written to the Auditor-General, Mike Blake, asking him to conduct a full audit of the process for the appointment of the new Children’s Commissioner.
“The role of Children’s Commissioner is above politics, and Tasmanians must have confidence in the position,” Mr Bartlett said.
“I want all Tasmanians to be assured that the process used to select the Commissioner was robust and independent from Government.
“The Cabinet has full confidence in the selection process, which involved an independent selection panel of five members, at arms-length from Government.
“However, there’s been extensive media and opposition criticism of the appointment process, and we recognise it’s important for the Tasmanian community to have clarity and certainty on the issue.
“I’ve asked the Auditor-General to look into the selection process, so the Tasmanian community can have full confidence in its outcome.
“Following a suggestion from the Cabinet Secretary, Cassy O’Connor, and a discussion at Cabinet, I have decided to take this action.
“I thank Ms O’Connor for her constructive input,” he said.
A copy of the Premier’s letter to Mr Blake appears below.