The fear of retribution, weak legal protections for whistleblowers, no legal requirement for all public officials to report criminal offending and "confusing" overlap between oversight bodies have been raised as issues during Tasmania's child abuse Commission of Inquiry.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The evidence came during questioning of three key Tasmanian oversight bodies - the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commission - during a public hearing on Thursday.
Questions were also raised about the independence of the bodies from government, including admissions that the Integrity Commission must rely on legal advice from the Solicitor-General who could, at the same time, be providing legal advice to a government member under investigation.
Counsel assisting the commission, Elizabeth Bennett SC, suggested whether this situation amount to "the advice about regulating the state ... coming from the state's own lawyer".
"It has caused us concern at times," Integrity Commission chief executive officer Michael Easton told the commission.
"There's a potential conflict there if we're investigating a government representative and they're seeking advice from their lawyer - which is the Solicitor-General - and we're required to get advice from that source as well."
If the Integrity Commission wants legal advice independent of government, it must have the approval of the premier or Attorney-General, and must pay for it itself.
Weak protections against reprisal for making complaints
Mr Easton said the Integrity Commission - the state's main anti-corruption body - can refer complaints about an organisation back to the organisation itself.
It was a situation that had been a deterrent for people to make a complaint.
"People are regularly concerned about that, but it's a reality that we work with," Mr Easton said.
Fear of reprisal also remained an issue.
"There's protections in place under our act, not very good ones I must say - the protection against reprisal - if it's a public interest disclosure, then there's protections under that act - they're not that great either," Mr Easton said.
"It's a real factor.
"It's our view based on our experience that people will not report things for fear of retribution or for fear of ostracisation as a whistleblower."
He detailed how, in Tasmania, not all public officials are required to report a criminal offence.
"There's some people who have to, but not everyone, and it's not even a requirement for public authorities to report to the police," Mr Easton said.
A 'confusing' web of complaint bodies
Representatives from the three bodies were questioned extensively about how their complaints-handling mechanisms overlap, and whether this could be a barrier for children and parents.
A hypothetical example was offered about a child in Ashley Youth Detention Centre who might have a complaint about improper use of seclusion by a prison officer, but the bodies struggled to explain how such a complaint would be dealt with.
Commissioner for Children and Young People, Leanne McLean, said "people are often confused" about her role, as she can only investigate broader systemic issues facing children, rather than individual cases.
She can help children make complaints to the Ombudsman however. But the Ombudsman can only investigate individuals is if a public interest disclosure is made.
Anyone can complain to the Integrity Commission, and Mr Easton said he would discuss matters with the Ombudsman to determine the best way to proceed.
"I think it's difficult for people to understand the complexities," he said.
"My sense is a layperson would know they can come to us about misconduct. They would not understand what I was just talking about in terms of what we might do with it, but they would at least know that they can come to us."
The three bodies do not have a blanket protocol about how to respond to particular issues, but child abuse allegations are always required to be referred to police, Ombudsman Richard Connock said.
All three bodies agreed that it was a "difficult system for laypeople to navigate".
'Robust discussions' from heads of Tasmanian agencies
Tasmania's Auditor-General Rod Whitehead said he has had "robust discussions" with heads of agencies over certain audits he had looked to undertake.
But he did not believe his office has been subjected to political influence, despite describing the potential for having the office's funding cut for displeasing the government as "a risk".
An investigation into COVID-related decision-making had caused "concern amongst some of the leaders within government", he said, due to their belief it could be a "disruption".
READ MORE: Missing Kempton woman found safe and well
Mr Whitehead was questioned about an investigation that found staff underperformance in the Tasmanian state service was not being effectively understood or managed.
Ms Bennett asked whether this could be relevant in the reporting of inappropriate contact with children.
"I think you could draw that association," Mr Whitehead said.
"I think in the context of some managers or some staff being unaware about how underperformance is managed, it could be equally the situation where you're dealing with cases of misconduct."
Why not have your say? Write a letter to the editor here:
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner