48. Royal Commissions and Consultation

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the South Australian Royal Commission into child protection. Given the recent appalling revelations of a Families SA officer abusing children in their care, and the apparent failure of the Department or system to respond and protect kids, who could grumble about an independent inquiry to find out what went wrong and to stop it happening again?

Well, my grumble is more about the way the Royal Commission was set up.

When the government announced the inquiry, it called for public submissions on the draft Terms of Reference – because as we know, the government does not “announce and defend” anymore.

Well, various groups and concerned individuals put in submissions suggesting changes, including broadening the inquiry to look at ways to keep kids out of state care in the first place, and also to look at what happened to all the previous inquiries into the child protection system – lest we re-invent the wheel or repeat past failures.

But 3 days after public submissions closed, the final Terms of Reference were announced – with almost no changes. There was a tinkering with some legalese, and the insertion of 6 words requiring a consideration of resources and the financial achievability of any recommendations.

It is not clear if this last change was a small recognition of the various submissions calling for a cost-benefit analysis in light of the huge cost and unknown benefit of police screening of workers and volunteers, or whether the change in wording was simply a common sense request not to recommend 24/7 guard details and video surveillance.

Either way, there was no widening of the terms of reference to consider the broader context of child protection, nor any acknowledgment that we have been here before.

Ultimately, if the government wants a narrow inquiry that addresses specific issues quickly, that’s legitimate – but don’t go through the farce of public consultation if you already know what you want.

“Consult and ignore” is no better than “announce and defend”.

The state government has a Stronger Together partnership with the community sector, they have the Better Together principles allegedly underpinning all government community engagement, and there is now even a Charter of Citizen Participation proposed in the new planning system reforms.

But frankly, these all amount to nothing if the community input is simply ignored, or if there is no explanation of why the government chose to proceed the way it did.

It is simply public servants ticking boxes that they have consulted, and I am too old and grumpy to be bothered with that game.

If you want an example of how such consultation should be treated, check out SACOSS’ last submission in relation to the ACNC.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 2 September 2014

27. Biases and lots of other things

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about lots of things! As the political year ratchets up, there has been so much to grumble about in the last week or so. There was our PM attacking the ABC for reporting asylum seeker claims of abuse, followed by a litany of Coalition MPs complaining (again) about the Labor-Green bias of the ABC – in the same week that our national broadcaster aired serious corruption allegations against building unions. But why is it that the scandal is about dodgy people in the unions, but not also the dodgy builders who paid them the alleged bribes. Sounds like bias to me.

Then there was Andrew Bolt complaining (Advertiser, 30 January) about racism and claiming to be indigenous (he really doesn’t understand race or structural power does he?). And on Mr Bolt’s other favourite subject, what about the weather? Another record heatwave to follow the all-time hottest year in Australia last year. It’s unpleasant, but at what point do we move from a discussion of weather to one of climate change – or is that a biased question?

Apparently not biased however is the recent government appointment of another of the diaspora of the right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. This time it was Ted Lapkin to assist in dismantling the national charity regulator that was set up just 18 months ago with support from the sector and on recommendation of about a dozen official inquiries.

And on the other side, what are we to make of the current state Labor Party TV adverts with the normally calm and thoughtful Jay Weatherill bouncing around unnaturally like a cross between Peter Garrett and a thunderbirds marionette. Given that he is trying to convey the achievements of his government, it’s a distraction which says again that the political image-masters are valuing impression over substance – and doing it badly at that. And then along came Don Farrell. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, across the border the WA government is sanctioning the slaughter of sharks and the NT government is shooting crocs in bloody retribution against innocent creatures. As we sprawl into their territory and tame or kill whatever confronts us, I am left yet again to wonder, how much room are we to leave for the other 99.999% of the planet’s species?

So much to grumble about, and so little time. I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 4 February 2014