Mike Bolan

I SUPPORT Tasmanians for a Healthy Democracy (THD) in their efforts to help create a fairer and more democratic system in Tasmania. To that end I made a submission to the Joint select committee on ethical conduct and I’ve included some of my ideas here in the hope that you will follow suit and make a submission to them yourself.

THD have another pro-forma letter on their website (1) to help you to make a submission. Closing date is August 1, 2008.

In Tasmania, we may need to remind ourselves of what ethics are. Answers.com defines ethics as ‘the science of human duty’, which I find entirely unhelpful as I do Wikipedia’s (3) description of ethics as ‘encompassing right conduct and good life’.

The most useful definition of ethics that I’ve heard is from Utas philosophy professor Jeff Malpas, who proposed that ethics is a series of rules designed to create and maintain long term trusting relationships. (trust is a belief that someone will do what they say they’ll do).

It’s pretty obvious when you think about it, honesty, openness, doing what you say, fairness – all these and more are the characteristics that engender trust, and hence support long term relationships.

Unfortunately these are not characteristics that many would associate with the Tasmanian government, indeed it is the lack of openness, honesty and failing to do what they are there to do (e.g. provide adequate health care) that is fuelling deep suspicion in the community.

I broke my submission into brief groups of dot points to get a significant number of issues on the table in the least amount of space. I prefaced each group with comments.

I’ve copied my submission below as an additional aid to help you when you prepare yours.

RE: Need for Ethical and Accountable Government in Tasmania.

Recommendations for an Independent Investigative Body.

I write as a complex systems consultant and strategist to advise that core issues surrounding the possibility of corruption in Tasmania need to be addressed urgently for a variety of reasons.
l To assure that Tasmanians are able to develop greater confidence in their government
l To show investors and others that Tasmania is an open and transparent place in which to do business
l To assure that the best quality of people are attracted into politics and government
l To send a clear signal to everyone that Tasmania is a 21st century environment
l To show that businesses will be dealt with fairly and equitably
l To show that the government is committed to honest and open practices.

There is a number of clear evidences that Tasmanians are using to conclude that corruption appears rife. These include
l Legal and other discrimination in favour of particular industries and companies
l Removal of individual rights of redress against selected companies (e.g. PMAA)
l Dismissal of members of PLP for representing majority interests while those who mislead parliament are retained
l Dismissal of community concerns when they conflict with favoured industry claims
l Major public works and vacancies that go untendered

It is for these reasons that many believe there is corruption, or corrupt influences, at work in the Tasmanian system of governance. The basic reasons for these problems need to be addressed.

The basic problems include:
l Lack of any oversight body or impartial investigative group with the powers to prosecute corrupt practices
l Party donation systems that fuel suspicions about party loyalties and bias
l Failure to support the principles of natural justice
l Failures of openness and transparency (e.g. failures to tender government business)

Unless the basic problems are addressed, any attempts to correct perceptions could well be subverted. Business investment is stimulated by a fair, equitable and honest environment.

Symptoms of corruption resulting from basic problems include:
l lack of policing and commitment to assuring that decision makers do not have a conflict of interest (e.g. on Local Councils)
l Exclusion of forestry from laws that apply to all others (e.g. LUPA)
l Secrecy in dealings with favoured industries
l Government acting for particular industries (e.g. pulp mill marketing)
l Risks to communities ignored, benefits to companies promoted (e.g. water for mill)
l Breaches of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (4) to favour forestry
 Different access under law provided to Gunns mill (e.g. PMAA Section 11)
 Favoured access to public services provided to Gunns mill
l Failures to address health threats created by particular industries
 Water contamination from forestry biocides and aerial spraying
 Smoke plume threats from forestry burn offs
l Scale of subsidies and favours to forestry versus reductions in critical public services that affect a majority of Tasmanians (e.g. health)
l Forestry industry judging the effects of its own impacts on communities of taxpayers (violates principles of natural justice)

I assert that the symptoms listed above are sufficient evidence that our system of government has become corrupted and, as a result, is operating unfairly and is discriminating against the many in favour of a few.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Tim Ellis SC, has stated that Tasmania lacks any independent investigative body capable of addressing issues of corruption. There seems little doubt that Tasmanians need an independent investigative body where the public can have faith that questions of governance will be dealt with confidentially, comprehensively, professionally, efficiently and effectively.

I am calling on the Joint Select Committee to establish an independent anti-corruption body with the following characteristics:
l Investigative ability that allows investigation of sitting members and public servants
l Supported by clear rules regarding avoidance of conflicts of interest
l Clear and unequivocal support for the principles of natural justice
l Supported by laws that deliver substantial whistleblower protection
l Ability to hold hearings in camera
l Public appointments from outside Tasmania
l An independent budget indexed to CPI and size of government
l Reporting to the people of Tasmania via the parliament, not the government

It would also be highly useful to devise a means to pay political party funding directly from the public purse so that parties could be:
l assured of funding levels
l disconnected from claims of bias
l seen to be impartial
l seen to act for the public rather than specific donors.

Overall, it is difficult to see how the government can claim to commit to equality for all when one favoured industry is excluded from laws, provided with major subsidies and allowed to sit in judgement on the impacts of their activities on taxpayers.

I trust that this information is of value and can contribute to Tasmania becoming a world class location for investment and business.
Should you have any queries please contact me.
Sincerely,
—————————————————————————————————-
Submissions should be addressed to

Members – Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct
Parliament House
Hobart
TAS 7000

and can be emailed to

[email protected]
—————————————————————————————————–
ABBREVIATIONS

LUPA – Land Use and Planning Act
PMAA – Pulp Mill Assessment Act
CPI – Consumer Price Index

1 – www.tashealthydemocracy.com
2 – http://www.answers.com/ethics
3 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
4 – http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (Articles 7 & 21 (2))