Paul Lennon, Age Pic, HERE
According to the mainstream media, Justice Secretary Lisa Hutton has “resigned” after a 30 year career in the public service. Her job has been advertised and applications close on the 27th of this month. Ms Hutton was appointed on a 5 year contract in late 2006. Therefore her contract should have been rolled over recently. Was it? Did she really resign from a secure position on around $320,000 a year plus car?
I have repeatedly said publicly that contracts should not be rolled over. The expiration of a senior public servant’s contract provides an opportunity for their performance to be considered and to look around to see whether a better person is available. This is why the contract system was introduced by Bob Hawke 30 years ago. The opportunity isn’t normally used and contracts are automatically rolled over.
During my period of working for the Attorney-General, I repeatedly urged that the contract for the head of the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (Mark Addis) not be renewed. Paul Lennon would not have been aware of this of course and would not have been interested if he had known. However not long after Mr Addis’s contract was renewed he was removed and after trying to find work for him for about 2 years the government finally had to pay $320,000 in compensation to buy out that contract. It would have been so much easier to review his performance at the time of renewing his contract! I saw no evidence that this was done.
Has Lara Giddings taken my advice in respect of Lisa Hutton? Did Ms Hutton resign, or …? Was she advised that her contract would not be renewed and then given the opportunity to announce her “retirement” and work up until her replacement was appointed? Is this what happened?
Lisa Hutton was appointed by Paul Lennon without the usual selection process. She replaced Peter Hoult, who was compulsorily transferred to Health, again by Paul Lennon. Lara Giddings appears to be in a quiet process of “de-Lennonisation” of her administration, and Ms Hutton may have joined a growing list of the casualties.
I found Peter Hoult to be intelligent and approachable. In contrast I found Ms Hutton to be conservative and unapproachable. She had me reprimanded on one occasion when, as a private citizen responding to a public invitation for suggestions, I suggested that the Law Reform Institute could look into ways of preventing the courts being misused as a weapon rather than as a vehicle for dispensing justice. Unknown to me at the time, she sat on the board of the Law Reform Institute (as well as the Workcover board).
My personal experience of Ms Hutton was borne out by the findings of a recent Legislative Council enquiry: “Certain testimony of Ms Hutton before this committee relating to the appointment of a magistrate in Tasmania was evasive, incoherent and unreliable. Ms Hutton is not a credible witness.” (Sue Neales’ Mercury report, HERE). An extraordinary finding against the head of the Justice Department! It further found that she had “carefully crafted deliberately misleading briefs” for the Attorney-General. In my view she should have “resigned” immediately.
If the Premier has in fact effectively “retired” Ms Hutton, then I hope that she uses the opportunity to make a good appointment. The position is one of the most important in the State, with enormous scope for doing good – or doing harm. I also hope that Barbara Etter applies for the position, and it might solve one of the government’s current legal problems if she were appointed!
— Nigel Burch
