ABC News Analysis-Tasmanian government needs to convince public it will deliver change in wake of Commission of Inquiry report

Adam Langenberg | ABC NEWS Analysis – Digital Online | 1 November  2023

Tasmanian government needs to convince public it will deliver change in wake of Commission of Inquiry report

Tasmanians had hoped the sexual abuse commission of inquiry would help clean up the culture inside state government institutions and departments, and help to stop child sexual abuse from occurring.

But, through no fault of its own, it’s left behind a mess, instead of a brand-new environment.

And there are lots of questions about where we go from here.

Tasked with examining how Tasmanian government institutions had protected child abusers instead of the victims they terrorised, the commission made a series of scathing findings in its almost 3,000-page report.

It made 191 recommendations, including closing the Ashley Youth Detention Centre, creating a new, strengthened regulator to advocate on behalf of children and young people, and outsourcing out-of-home care to the private sector.

But lots of recommendations were also geared towards overhauling and strengthening the culture in government departments, to prioritise children’s safety above all else.

As well as looking forensically at the big picture, the commission also put the microscope on individual public servants who were alleged to have failed to listen, turned a blind eye to allegations, or failed to launch investigations.

But in its final report, it argued its efforts to hold people to account were hampered.

Despite issuing 30 misconduct notices — which are an allegation of misconduct — to 22 individuals, the commission found in its report that just one had committed misconduct — former Launceston General Hospital medical services head Peter Renshaw, who the commission found “actively sought to mislead” it.

The commission said its ability to make findings of misconduct was constrained by legislation, making it “difficult and in some cases, impossible for us to make some of the findings we might otherwise have made”.

The government has already promised to review the Commissions of Inquiry Act to prevent future inquiries from encountering the same problems, but that doesn’t clarify what the other 21 individuals were alleged to have done, or what the commission of inquiry would have said about them if they had the chance.

After weeks of scrutiny about what action the government plans on taking, Independent MLC Meg Webb took matters into her own hands on Tuesday.

In parliament, she named 21 public servants who responded to procedural fairness notices, whom she said the commission may have intended to make either adverse findings, or findings of misconduct, against.

They included the solicitor-general, the commissioner for children and young people, ombudsman Richard Connock and Integrity Commission chief executive Michael Easton.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff told Parliament on Wednesday morning that Ms Webb’s speech was factually and legally incorrect, and said Mr Connock, Mr Easton and the current holders of those other statutory bodies did not receive misconduct notices.

Ms Webb told parliament the list also included employees and managers at the Launceston General Hospital and the Ashley Youth Detention Centre, as well as personnel at the former Department of Communities, including former Secretary Michael Pervan, tasked with overseeing the detention centre.

Eight government departments, entities and statutory bodies also provided procedural fairness responses, including Tasmania Police, the Teachers Registration Board, the Health Department and the Department for Education, Children and Young People.

Ms Webb told parliament the list was “extraordinary”, and it was “entirely unacceptable” the government hadn’t already named those who had received misconduct notices.

“On a prima facie reading of the commission’s report, legitimate questions arise relating to each of these individuals and entities, and whether the commission was considering or intending to make a finding of misconduct or an adverse finding against them,” she said.

“The commission’s report makes it clear that the absence of specific misconduct or adverse findings is because those processes had to be abandoned unfinished, due to apparent obstacles raised, primarily by the state — not because of lack of merit of any potential thwarted findings.

“What that clearly means is that significant clouds — rightly or wrongly — remain over those eight entities, and 22 individuals.”

Mr Rockliff said the public servants listed by Ms Webb had been “maligned” and called on her to apologise.

He told the parliament people did not need to have been accused of wrongdoing or issued a notice about misconduct or adverse findings to provide a procedural fairness response, and those accused of misconduct were not required to submit one.

“To suggest that the individuals and entities that provided such responses to the Commission are complicit or involved in the abuse of children – is as irresponsible as it is false,” he said.

Mr Rockliff’s response answers lots of questions, but not who received misconduct notices, what process they’ll go through or what consequences they could face.

Tasmanians will be relieved to know that the heads of oversight and regulatory bodies did not receive misconduct notices, nor any current departmental secretary.

But they don’t know how many of the 21 people who did receive them remain in the public service, or where they work.

Given how crucial a role government departments will play in implementing and overseeing the Commission of Inquiry response, victim-survivors and politicians are pushing for more certainty.

People want to be sure that the institutions that they send their children to, like hospitals and schools, are safe.

Everyone understands that bringing about cultural change of the magnitude called for by the Commission will take time, but the government needs to take people along with it on the journey.

It’s unclear whether the government knows exactly who the people who received misconduct notices are, but clarifying what it does know, and what action will be taken against them, would be a good first step towards easing public concern.

That will help to convince the public that they should have faith in the government and its departments to deliver the change the state so desperately needs.

View ABC article online