Greenberry inquiry must be transparent and protect witnesses

This week’s inquiry by the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts into the resignation of Tasmania’s former prison boss Barry Greenberry must be transparent and protect witnesses.

It is in the public interest that all witnesses who give evidence to this inquiry do so publicly.

Further, all witnesses who give evidence to this inquiry need to be given written assurance by the Public Accounts Committee and the Parliamentary Privileges Committee that they will receive protection against any form of discrimination or reprisals that may result from their giving evidence. This should be in addition to the verbal assurance witnesses are normally given that their evidence is protected by parliamentary privilege.

In September last year the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity conducted an enquiry at the request of a senior public servant to hear evidence in camera about matters relating to the powers and activities of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

The Joint Standing Committee on Integrity never made public any report about the matters that were raised during this in camera inquiry.

All matters relating to the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity, and the powers and functions of the Integrity Commission, should be made publicly available, as should the proceedings of the upcoming Public Accounts Committee inquiry into Mr Greenberry’s resignation.

• David Obendorf Transcript, 24 May 2013 – Greenberry issue ABC 936 – Statewide Mornings with Leon Compton

Mr McKim: Nothing in Mr Greenberry’s correspondence for me proves otherwise – that is proves, ahh…that he resigned for other than ‘personal and family reasons’.

Those emails were written to me prior to his resignation… now they did contain a number of very serious matters and that is why I took the appropriate step and referred those emails to the Integrity Commission because Mr Greenberry was clear with me in those emails that he had already made a complain to the Integrity Commission about, ahh… some issues he had concerns about. And I formed the view, I think appropriately, that the Integrity Commission was the place, ahh… to refer…. for me to refer those emails to; so that those emails were in the possession of the information of the Integrity Commission during their consideration of Mr Greenberry’s complaint.

Compton: He [Greenberry] was the reason you went overseas – after an exhaustive search – and found an outsider to do this job. That is was always going to be tough; it got tough, he told you it was tough and then you handed the issues on to someone else.

McKim: Well, Leon, it’s not a Minister’s job to investigate serious allegations against … of the type, ahh… Mr Greenberry made. I mean we need to be very clear about this. This is the reason we established the Integrity Commission in Tasmania. I drove that debate for many years calling for the establishment of an Integrity Commission. And I was a very active member of the Parliamentary Committee that ultimately recommended the establishment of the Integrity Commission… precisely, so that ministers who had these allegations raised – or anyone – who felt there was corruption or malfeasance or maladministration of a serious nature, could have those allegations assessed by an independent authority that had the powers necessary to do that assessment. It shouldn’t be for Ministers to conduct these investigations. In fact if Ministers were conducting these investigations, people would say: ‘Ahh, you’re not the appropriate person to do it’.

Compton: What he told you was he was experiencing institutional resistance to doing his job. You always knew that was going to be the case. He was telling you about a lot of problems you knew that needed to be fixed and then you handed it off to the Integrity Commission.

McKim: A couple of points here, Leon. Firstly that’s not the only thing I did. And I’ve been consistent about this…. I took advice from….. the Department on the matters and discussed those emails – the matters that he’d raised in those emails – with the department. It is absolutely the right thing to do for the Integrity Commission to investigate serious allegations of any kind in the Public Sector in Tasmania. That’s why we set it up. The other point… [interrupted]

Compton: What did they tell you about the investigation – given how serious they were and given how directly they connect to the operation of your portfolio?

McKim: Well the Integrity Commission has written to the Department of Justice making it very clear, ahh… that they’ve assessed,ahh… the claims that were made by Mr Greenberry and dismissed them. So… ahh, those matters are matters for the Integrity Commission ….

Compton: You didn’t find out personally? You haven’t read that information?

McKim: Ahh, I’ve… I’ve read the letter and infact tabled the letter from the Integrity Commission to the Department of Justice in Parliament yesterday; so it’s on the public record.

Compton: It’s hard to tell from that letter whether they actually investigated the claims line by line, or whether they did what they do – apparently – in a significant number of cases, which is just describe them as beyond their remit, and that the issue has been dealt with.

McKim: Well, I certainly don’t have any advice that the Integrity Commission considered these matters beyond their remit. By Leon, feel free to ask the Integrity Commission how they did it.

Compton: They have said they won’t talk about this and most people would say it’s the Corrections Minister’s job to deal with the issues of… of responsibility that were raised by Barry Greenberry.

McKim: Well, it’s not any Minister’s job to investigate serious allegations made – of the type that we established the Integrity Commission to investigate. That is …. I… respectfully, I disagree completely with you…on that. It is the Integrity Commission’s job to investigate those matters; they made it clear that they assessed Mr Greenberry’s complaint and they dismissed the complaint. And that’s what the letter, ahh… in Parliament said.

Look the real shame here, Leon, from my point of view is a prison where we have, ahh… management , we have correctional officers and staff who are doing a fantastic job; they really want to make positive change to the prison. And I can’t express my admiration for the way correctional officers and others have brought into the changes that need to me made at the prison. An unfortunately now, we got a situation where people are thinking, ahh… that the prison is not moving forward in a constructive way. I can assure you, and anyone else that the reform agenda is on-track. And it’s on track because the correctional officers and management at the prison are doing an outstanding job. And I remind listeners that the man brought in to run the change process at the prison was not Barry Greenberry, it was Brian Edwards who was brought in as Director of change …. [interrupted] management.

Compton: The man who was brought in to run the prison tried to make change and he quit. The question is … were you frank with Parliament?

McKim: Absolutely! I have been… absolutely frank and accurate and I stand by every single piece of advice that I have given to Parliament on this issue. Mr Greenberry has signed a deed… [interrupted] … a deed of settlement.

Compton: Mr Greenberry… he chronicled to you – in two emails – in which he spoke extensively about the problems he was having doing the job (Hummm) that you had put him there to do (Hummm). They are the reasons that he quit aren’t they? And you mention them on no occasion….

McKim: Ahhh… Leon, I don’t know whether you’ve spoken to Mr Greenberry, or anyone else has spoken to Mr Greenberry. Those emails do not go to his resignation, for the simple reason that they hadn’t resigned when he sent the emails. His resignation is dealt with in a deed of settlement with the Department where he has signed a deed where has said he is resigning ‘for personal and family reasons’.

Leon: I’ll quote to you from one of the emails: ‘And this is why I am considering a negotiated settlement’, he says in one [email]. He is flagging to you seriousness of these issues.

McKim: Hang…. Hang on a sec… Leon, at the time he wrote those emails he was yet to resign. As to his resignation, they go, as I said earlier, to his state of mind at the time he resigned. It is not for me to second guess a signed deed of settlement, that Mr Greenberry has signed; that he insisted on, ahh… the inclusion of ‘personal and family reasons’. … as the reason for his resignation. Now I mean, if anyone wants to claim to be a mind-reader here, go for your life! But I’m not going to go down that path; I’m relying on the advice I had from the Department that there was a deed of settlement signed by Mr Greenberry that says he’s resigning for personal and family reasons.

Compton: Minister he’s laying it out clearly to you … in his correspondence; his ongoing frustrations. Are you now completely satisfied that there were no grounds to any thing that he raised?

McKim: What I’m satisfied about Leon… is that I took the appropriate action in referring those emails; there were two emails that Mr Greenberry sent to me – prior to his resignation , as I said. I referred them to the Integrity Commission and I also took advice from the Department on the matters raised by Mr Greenberry in his emails.

Leon: Were you told he was to present to you savings that everybody knew you could never agree to?

McKim: Well, ahh… I’ve sought advice from the Department on that… and the Department has VERY strongly and clearly advised me that that is not correct.

Compton: And off course that would have been part of what was happening inside the Department … providing you with advice that you couldn’t agree to (hum). So, they have told you that they didn’t do that?

McKim: Absolutely! Ahhm… absolutely, they’ve told me that, and I informed the Parliament of that yesterday.

Compton: Did you refer that to the Integrity Commission?

McKim: Well, I referred the emails – in total – to the Integrity Commission, Leon.

Compton: Was he offered an incentive to resign? He says he was.

McKim: Ahh…. no, I’ve checked back with the Department and their very strong and very clear advice is: No, that he wasn’t.

Compton: Why do you think he said it, if he wasn’t?

McKim: Well, I think you’d need to ask Mr Greenberry, Leon. I mean I’m not a mind-reader here. I…. I don’t know what Mr Greenberry‘s state of mind was, ahhhh… around his resignation? Ahh, my advice from the Department is that Mr Greenberry was accorded natural justice and procedural fairness all the way through the processes. All the way through the lead up, ahh… to his resignation. And that he resigned ‘for personal and family reasons’.

Compton: Would you be concerned if he was offered, I mean I am interested in yourlevel of concern about all of these issues, given that you had a job that you knew that you had to find an international candidate to deal with because it would be tough … and it would seem from his perspective, that he was isolated in doing it and received little support above – above him, below him and indeed from you?

McKim: Concerned? Ahhh… my word!… I’d be concerned, if people were offered inducements to do things that were unlawful or unreasonable. I’d certainly be concerned about that. But my consistent advice from the Department is that, that didn’t occur?

Compton: So, why did you pay him out?

McKim: Well, he was…ahhh, the settlement was made. And all the details of his settlement have been on the record for a long period of time, now Leon. The settlement was made, ahhh… and it wasn’t me that paid him out, ahhh… by the way. These matters were handled – appropriately – as employment matters should be, by Departments, not Ministers. And, ahh…. he was provided with, ahhh… a settlement, ahhhhh….. that included some… some re-settlement costs for him. Ahhm…, to go back to ahh… England, of $15,000; he was reimbursed his legal costs of $5000.

Compton: He got a quarter of a million dollars, why did you pay him out?

McKim: Ahh, I’m coming to that Leon… ahh… ahhmm, a reimbursement of $5000 and a pay to him of ahhh… 14-month’s salary ; which is ahhh, 242,and a bit,ahh… thousand dollars. The reason, ultimately that, ahh… the decision was made to offer Mr Greenberry that, that package… ahh, was because the potential cost to the State of an ongoing Workers Compensation claim – which there was at that stage – was considerably greater than 14-month’s salary, and I still remain of the view that given that Mr Greenberry intended to resign; that that settlement provided the best financial outcome for the state with all matters taken into consideration.

Compton: He suggests he was offered a negotiated settlement; isn’t that a negotiated settlement?

McKim: Well, yes… that, that is the negotiated settlement that was,ahhm… contained in the deed of settlement as I understand it.

Compton: But you said earlier that he wasn’t offered a negotiated settlement.

McKim: No, you asked me about an inducement, Leon… not a negotiated settlement.

Compton: Well, it’s hard to know from what you’ve tabled; which is which?

McKIm: Well, my advice from the Department was: No, he wasn’t offered an inducement… but, of course, ahh… there was a negotiated settlement that was contained in the deed of settlement that was signed by Mr Greenberry and those matters I’ve placed on the record long time ago…in the Parliament.

Because I… look, Leon, I want to be clear about this… ahhm, I have demonstrated a significantly increased level of transparency around these matters than many other Ministers have. And because the Greens have always argued for transparency and we’ve seen, ahh… Bob Gordon leave Forestry Tasmania recently and nobody knows what Mr Gordon got paid out for leaving Forestry Tasmania. I have been upfront with the Tasmanian people; I have been upfront with the Parliament and that is because taxpayers have a right to know what their money is being expended on and how much of their money is being expended. So I have demonstrated a significantly higher level of transparency than many other executive departures from the Tasmanian public sector during my time in the Parliament.

Compton: The other side of that is, that you have been given the job of managing Tasmania’s corrections services (McKim: Yes), that you got somebody in to do that job – that they were alienated and what might be described as an all too Tasmanian experience for people who come in from outside and what you did, in fact, was incredibly hands-off. That when it came to managing your portfolio, you handed it to someone else – whether it’s the Integrity Commission or whether it’s deferring responsibility to other Departments … settlements… whatever?

McKim: Leon, Leon… Leon, anyone who goes back and looks at my three years as Minister for Corrections would have a very difficult job arguing that I’ve been a hands-off Minister in the prison. I mean, I have taken steps that actually should have been taken over a decade ago… to fix up Tasmania’s prison system.

I have brought in Mr Mick Palmer a very well regarded person to put an independent look, ahh… ahhh, through the prison. To… …. I’ve received his report; I’ve ahh… made every single word of his report, public. We are moving very successfully through an implementation plan. We have implemented 78% of all of the recommendations of all of the reports that we have had into the TPS. We now have Mr Brian Edwards – who was brought in as the change manager – who is still doing that role acting in the position of Director [of Prisons]. And I can tell you that the prison is moving strongly in the right direction thanks to Mr Edwards, his leadership team, the correctional officers and prison staff out there who are doing a fantastic job!

Compton: Given the differing versions that have emerged over his departure, how can the public have 100% confidence in you, as Minister about how your department does business?

McKim: Well, with respect Leon, there are no ‘differing versions’ as to the reasons that Mr Greenberry resigned. There are no ‘differing versions’. Mr Greenberry has signed a deed of settlement saying he left ‘for personal and family reasons’. If you have proof otherwise, let’s hear it. But you haven’t provided any….

Compton: I’m sitting in front of two letters, both of which you effectively confirmed – one of which was tabled in Parliament yesterday – from a man who has chronicled serious and ongoing issues in doing his job as head of corrections. That is the evidence; none of which has been heard on the floor of Parliament, from you.

McKim: Ahh, well… Leon, there is nothing in the two emails Mr Greenberry sent to me that proves he resigned for any other reason than ‘personal and family reasons’.

Compton: I mean, should Correction Services be more concerned about these issues, given that it’s happening on your watch?

McKim: I’m very concerned when any issues of that nature are raise with me; that’s why I took the action that I did.

Compton: Your head of Prisons said this…. and you found none of them to be valid?

McKim: No, the Integrity Commission assessed the serious allegations that Mr Greenberry made…

Compton: These are operational; it’s your job to work out what ultimately… what needs to happen here. And the advice that you are taking is from people that he is complaining about?

McKim: Ahh, no Leon…. That’s why we established….. you need to understand here. You are confusing two issues. There was,ahh… serious issues made in the emails that Mr Greenberry … or allegations made, in, in the emails Mr Greenberry sent to me. That quite appropriately I referred to the Integrity Commission. There were other issues that, as you say, were operational in, in ahh… in their scope. And that is why I raised those issues with the Department. I am entirely confident that the Department has acted appropriately. I am entirely confident that I have acted appropriately. And I am entirely confident that reform agenda in the Tasmanian Prison Servicer is well on track.

Compton: It was the department that Barry Greenberry was complaining about. Their advice, you sought to clear themselves.

McKim: No, Leon. The ahh… complaints made by, ahh… Mr Greenberry, ahh… yes, were made again to the Departments, but those matters I referred those emails in full to the Integrity Commission. I mean, these were… there were serious allegations that weremade. I, I… absolutely accept that, and I treated them very seriously when I, ahh…. ahh, when I read them. And that is why I referred them to the Integrity Commission.

Compton: Ok, so the issue at the end of the day is that you are guilty of thing more than an appalling choice of the head of Corrections.

McKim: Leon, there’s a process ahhm… around the appointment of senior,ahh… people in the Tasmanian Public Sector. It’s a hands-off approach for all Ministers, and as it should be. Because if ministers… [interrupted]

Compton: We talked about this many times while you were doing this…. where it’s a global search, and whatever… [interrupted]

McKim: Leon, if you could just let me finish. Yes, it was a global search… there was a panel of senior public sector,ahh…people, ahh… appointed. Ahh… you don’t want Ministers appointing their mates to positions; you want a proper rigorous process to find the best person possible. That process was followed, ahhhh… the decision was made to appoint Mr Greenberry and that decision was endorsed by Cabinet… or noted by Cabinet.

Now look, ahh… Mr Greenberry ….obviously it hasn’t worked out for him here, and he’s now not in the position any more. But I…

Compton: It hasn’t worked out for you! It hasn’t worked out for the Tasmanian people. It was… if, if none of this is found to be valid, a bad choice and it is Tasmania that is bearing a consequence for that; whether it is through the pay out; whether it is through the challenges it poses; whether it’s about the issues it raised on the floor of Parliament.

McKim: Well, my main job as Minister for Corrections is to do what I can to ensure the good operation of the prison system; to make sure it actually operates, ahh… to the benefit of the Tasmanian people and I’ve made significant changes to the way that Prison operates. And I don’t think anybody could argue to the contrary. And I truly believe that it is well on the way to operating as a prison should – which is ultimately about giving people a chance to turn their lives around; pump education and rehabilitation opportunities, job potential, ahhh… opportunities into the prison.

[Last 20 seconds not included… not relevant] – 20 Minute interview