Transparency is key in any leadership role.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Whether it is a government body, or a political party, or an independent body, there should always be accountability in key organisations.
There are calls from the police union for transparency around a decision to withdraw a notice issued by WorkSafe Tasmania to the Justice Department ordering changes to the state's court security.
The calls are based on the fact that the work health and safety regulator falls under the Department of Justice.
The Justice Department said there were deficiencies with the notice and that was why it was withdrawn, but it highlights the broader issue of accountability and transparency around internal decision making.
In this particular situation, where one arm of a government department is dealing with another arm of that same department, who is responsible for ensuring the process remains legitimate and the decisions are independent of any hierarchy?
It is not a new issue.
Recently, there were concerns raised over the accountability of the state's Legal Profession Board, after a client was denied access to her own file.
The board is an independent regulator, and those wanting to complain about their process can write to the Attorney-General.
But when questioned over the transparency of the board in June, Attorney-General Elise Archer said it was "not appropriate to comment on any individual matter, or the board's decision-making process".
So the board holds legal professionals to account, but who holds the board accountable?
While it is clearly not a new issue, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone the light further on government transparency around its decision making more broadly.
Yesterday, Premier Peter Gutwein defended the decision to keep the state's borders closed until December 1.
Questions were asked after Public Health deputy director Scott McKeown told political leaders in a briefing earlier this week that there was a one-in-ten-million chance of coronavirus being brought in to Tasmania from any state not deemed a virus hot spot.
This led to the premier fronting media again, reiterating the border closures were about keeping Tasmanians safe, and were based on health advice.
But to the general public, this comes across as mixed messaging.
The coronavirus pandemic is new territory for all involved, but transparency and accountability are not new concepts for any government or their departments.