Media release – Jeremy Rockliff, Premier, 12 April 2024
Blake Review released
I am today releasing the review by Mike Blake AM who I tasked with examining the actions of Heads of Agency in relation to the Commission of Inquiry.
I requested Mr Blake to determine if the conduct of any Secretaries and Acting Secretaries had potentially breached the Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct.
I have accepted Mr Blake’s findings and determined that Secretaries and Acting Secretaries have not breached the Code of Conduct.
In considering his assessment, Mr Blake has made several recommendations for administrative improvements.
I will task the Head of the State Service to work with Secretaries to consider these matters and provide advice.
As I have always stated, I continue to have full confidence in the Secretaries of the relevant departments, and I am pleased to be able to provide this additional level of assurance to the Tasmanian public.
We will continue to steadfastly deliver the reforms we have initiated to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all Tasmania’s children and young people.
Mr Blake has offered to brief Members of Parliament on his report next week.
I appreciate Mr Blake’s offer and encourage members to attend.
The full report can be found here.
Excerpt – Mike Blake AM, 12 April 2024 (release date)
Chapter 2 – Assessment conclusions
I made three conclusions.
Firstly, and having considered matters of concern raised by the Commissioners of the Tasmanian Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings (Commission of Inquiry or COI) in respect of actions by the present occupants of the following offices:
• The Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (currently Jenny Gale);
• The Secretary of the Department of Health (currently Kathrine Morgan-Wicks);
• The Secretary of the Department for Education, Children and Young People (currently Tim Bullard);
• The Secretary for the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management and Commissioner of Police (not currently but explicitly included in my scope, Darren Hine);
• The Secretary of the Department of Justice (currently Ginna Webster); and
• the Secretaries of those agencies which now no longer exist by virtue of machinery of government changes, but that had responsibility for the care and protection of children and were the precursor to those departments listed above (this was Michael Pervan);
and, having completed my assessment as outlined in Chapter 5 of this report, the conduct of these persons does not, potentially, breach the Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct or, in the case of the Commissioner, neither the Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct nor the code of conduct outlined in the Police Service Act 2003.
Secondly, that in relation to the persons mentioned in Chapter 5 who acted for periods as Secretary of any of the above departments (including the Department of Communities), the conduct of these persons, working in their capacity as Secretary, does not, potentially, breach the Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct.
In addition, I note that, for reasons set out in Chapter 5, I am unwilling to conclude in respect of actions by the former occupants of the above Offices.
Thirdly, in relation to all matters in the COI’s final report where findings were unable to be made (Volume 1, Chapter 5.1 Challenges we faced), I fully considered all matters and this did not change the conclusions that I arrived at as outlined above but resulted, for the reasons outlined in Chapters 4 and 6, in my Recommendations 1, 4 and 5. When considering the challenges faced, I also took into account Chapter 23 in Volume 8 Afterword.
Chapter 3 – Recommendations
The following recommendations are included in this report:
1. That Government take note of the matters raised by the Commissioners as these relate to changes needed to the COI Act and initiate changes to this Act to address these.
2. That Secretaries outline in their annual reports to the Premier/Minister how they have responded to performance agreement expectations about keeping children safe and developments regarding collaboration.
3. That the Chair of the Secretaries Board include in six-monthly reports to Cabinet a report on how effectively Secretaries are progressing collaboration, keeping children safe and recommendations made by Dr Ian Watt AC.
4. That, to the extent they have not already done so, DECYP and DoH collaborate to ensure that, to the extent relevant, child safe policies, professional conduct policies and professional development arrangements coincide.
5. That, in responding to the COI’s recommendations 20.1 to 20.14, Government ensure that, where applicable, it is clear the extent to which these recommendations capture Secretaries.
6. That, to the extent that action has not already been taken, DPAC or SSMO take ownership of the Integrity Commission’s Guide to Managing Misconduct in the Tasmanian Public Sector and follow through on the recommendations made by the Integrity Commissioner relating to this.
7. That an independent review be carried out by a governance expert familiar with public sector governance of the governance arrangements established by each Secretary with the objective of ensuring these arrangements make clear responsibilities and accountabilities and a best fit for the delivery of allocated functions.
Alternative to 7. That, as an alternative to Recommendation 7, the proposed independent governance review be sponsored by, and report to, the Secretaries Board.
8. That Secretaries establish practices whereby they have access to independent views on governance via membership of audit and risk committees (or similar arrangements) with a focus, at least currently, on supporting Secretaries in identifying and mitigating risks associated with issues raised in the COI Report.
9. That Government, or the Head of the State Service, initiate a review of the decision to abolish the State Service Commissioner model in 2013.
10. That SSMO engage with Secretaries to institute a program of induction of new employees, and regular updates for existing employees, about the code of conduct and principles.
While Recommendations 1 and 2 are similar, their source and end points differ.
In making Recommendations 2 and 3, I note that I have been advised of other accountability mechanisms that will be in place to support oversight of performance against expectations about keeping children safe. The Commissioner for Children (including a Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People) will be reporting to a Parliamentary Committee, and the Independent Monitor will be reporting to Parliament every six months.
Twitter comment – ‘Alysha Rose’, 12 April 2024
This Blake review
I’m processing. It appears the Commissioners offered to meet with him and he didn’t take it up? It also appears that he relied on two of my CONFIDENTIAL HR reports, the Bowen report and the Bartlett report, which I was told couldn’t be shared as they would breach privacy laws. In writing, by Peter Gutwein. Their content is deeply personal and incredibly confidential. If you’re a reviewer, and are given two personal HR reports, made by one person – would you not reach out to that person? Because those reviews were followed by massive legal battles about how factually flawed they were… they even led to a second CoI submission as an example of how ‘independent’ reviews are weaponised to cover up misconduct. Did they share that with Mr Blake?
Unless the main objective was to dissuade Blake from the need to speak to me, because of what I’d say? It was a big shock, and truly violating to see such personal, traumatic and demonstrably corrupt reports being shared with a stranger, without consent from myself the complainant, without the @RockliffTeam also sharing the pages and pages of inaccuracies/context. For example, in one of them, I was told the sec was cleared because the reviewer had not heard back from my lawyer. I had changed lawyers at the time, but remained mates with my previous one. They were stupid to assume we fell out. They lied about not hearing from him, and being unable to clarify information needed. So let the sec off the hook. They then dismantled my entire department, in response to the same complaint. Did you tell Blake that Jeremy Rockliff?
How dare you weaponise my personal trauma and experiences in your corrupt state service to cover up for these monsters? I’m so distressed and feel incredibly violated. I think you better provide the truth to the public, it’s much much better coming from you. Tell them you cherry picked the few pieces of information Mr Blake had. You did not provide all relevant information by any stretch. How did you not break the law by sharing confidential reports without the complainants consent? Please find attached the email from Premier Gutwein regarding the horrific whitewash, the Bartlett review. He conveniently fails to mention that the advice she got, was from his own OSG. I await your apology. Please help me get answers for this heinous violation @MegWebbTweets @rosaliewoodruff, this review was meant to be about answers we desperately need, not distracting Mr Blake with false information.
Twitter thread – Nick Feik, 12 April 2024
— untitled —
Amazing. Govt’s appointed reviewer finds no one did anything wrong. The cover-ups happened all by they selves obvs.
Heads of department didn’t breach the state service code of conduct that … didn’t apply to them. Dude didn’t even speak to the head of the state service! Srsly.
Blake didn’t even have access to the COI transcripts that were taken down. You know why they were taken down? Because they might interfere with criminal investigations (that never happened).
Further: even the public had access to these transcripts (earlier). And I can tell you, they were damning. They were taken down/disappeared for a reason.
It beggars belief that we would have had more info about these crimes and coverups than the guy appointed to “review” them. He doesn’t even seem to know who received notices of potential misconduct findings.
Absolute fucking joke. And released now when it can’t be scrutinised in parliament for months, by a government still in negotiations to form govt? You’ve been played again, TAS. No one will ever be held responsible for the mass institutional abuse of your children. Blame Rocky.
Editor’s note: Nick Feik is the author of ‘The Rotten Core’.
