Children’s watchdog role must be arm’s length from government
Tensions revealed in Integrity Commission report can be avoided, writes Greg Barns
THE Children’s Commissioner performs a critical role in Tasmania. He or she is the independent watchdog and advocate for vulnerable children who find themselves in the care of the state. But last week’s report by the integrity Commission into allegations concerning the way in which Jacqui Petrusma, then minister for human services, her office and the Children’s Commissioner dealt with each other underlines the need to make this appointment one made by the Parliament.
The Commission’s report dealt with allegations made by the ALP spokesperson in the area Josh Willie that Ms Petrusma and her Chief of Staff Suzie Jacobson in essence sought to interfere with the independence of the then Commissioner Mark Morrissey. The original allegation was that Ms Petrusma’s office had told Mr Morrissey not to put “sensitive information in writing to the Minister.” Further allegations, such as alleging that Ms Petrusma sought to enlist Mr Morrissey in political partisanship and that her office failed to respect the independence of Mr Morrissey, were dealt with by the Commission.
The Commission dismissed the allegations and concluded that Ms Jacobson did not request or direct Mr Morrissey to stop writing to the minister. And in relation to the other allegations the Commission was of the view that Ms Jacobson’s “conduct, whilst robust, was not intended to be disrespectful in nature, notwithstanding that [Mr Morrissey] perceived it as such” and that while the minister was “partially influenced by the political and media pressure at the time” the Integrity Commission found she did not seek to enlist Mr Morrissey in a political role.
There was however a lack of understanding on the part of Ms Petrusma’s office about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner, or as the Integrity Commission puts it, “the possibility that Ms Jacobson did not fully appreciate the statutory independence of the Commissioner”. But then there was this extraordinary finding by the Integrity Commission. The Commissioner for Children, it says, “is not a public servant for the purposes of the” Ministerial Code of Conduct “and therefore there was no apolitical role held by the Commissioner that the Minister was required to respect under the code.”
This finding must be acted upon by the Hodgman Government and the parliament immediately. It is completely undermining of the office of the Children’s Commissioner that it lacks the independence from ministers that public servants enjoy. The finding by the Integrity Commission on this point means that in future a minister can, if he or she so desired, seek to use the Children’s Commissioner in a politically partisan way and get away with it because of a technicality in a ministerial code that is written by government!
Watchdog and oversight bodies like the Children’s Commissioner need to be able to operate completely free of political pressure. What emerges from the Integrity Commission report was a deteriorating relationship between the minister’s office
and Mr Morrissey. That regrettable tension is undesirable and it could be avoided.
If the Children’s Commissioner is to be really effective then he or she should not have to deal regularly with ministers and their offices, whether Liberal, ALP or Green. The Commissioner should not have to be feeling, subconsciously or consciously, that he or she needs to tailor advocacy and investigations because he or she is not treated as fully independent under a politically drafted code.
The answer to this unsatisfactory state of affairs is to ensure that the Commissioner is appointed by, and answerable only to the parliament. If this were the case then the requirement to liaise with the government of day, particularly at the political end via the medium of the minister and his or her office, would diminish sharply. It would allow for a more truly independent voice for children.
That the office of Children’s Commissioner should be accountable only to parliament is necessary because of the remit of that role. Children who are subjected to the care of the state have no voice. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. The government officials, political and non-political, exercise enormous power over these children and can impact their lives markedly in the short, medium and long term.
Because of the vast power imbalance between the vulnerable child and the government officials who direct the child’s life it is imperative that the Children’s Commissioner is resourced both in terms of powers, funding and accountability frameworks in a way that maximises the rights of the child.
The Integrity Commission report tabled last week shines a light on the inadequate state of affairs that exists when it comes to independent protection of children in Tasmania. This needs to change and all legislators in Tasmania would surely want to see a truly independent Children’s Commissioner being able to act more independently, secure in the knowledge that it is the legislature and not simply government to which he or she must report.