Daniel Wills: Independent investigation into Oakden aged care scandal may unearth inconvenient truths for SA Government

FOR everyone who’s been watching the Oakden saga and wondering how it is possible that no one’s taken responsibility for this rolling omnishambles, this week you won a powerful friend.

Clive and Barb Spriggs with a picture of father and husband Bob Spriggs, who was mistreated at Oakden.

• Oakden: Another case of alleged abuse at aged care home
• Oakden documents released by Aged Care Quality Agency
• Whistleblowers, family members demand Oakden answers
• Oakden nursing home to be closed, three incidents reported

FOR everyone who’s been watching the Oakden saga and wondering how it is possible that no one’s taken responsibility for this rolling omnishambles, this week you won a powerful friend.

Independent Commissioner Bruce Lander dropped a bombshell in evidence to a parliamentary inquiry on Thursday, confirming that his office will investigate the Oakden scandal as a possible case of systemic maladministration.

Forebodingly, SA’s anti-corruption boss added: “Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for it”. “Somebody has to be responsible,” he said.

He expects to have the inquiry finished in about six months, ready for the state election in March. The result could be explosive, and badly weaken a spluttering government.

In the screechy world of two-and-a-bit party politics, it is often hard to grip on to something solid. With the Opposition leaping to demand sackings before even a handful of facts are known, and the State Government acting like Naked Gun’s Frank Drebin and insisting there’s nothing to see here as a fireworks factory explodes behind them, a balanced opinion is tough to find.

But in the letters to the editor over the past few weeks, and other barometers of public mood, it’s become apparent that there’s a general view something is gravely wrong at Oakden and that the root remains undisturbed.

It’s seen as symbolising a broad culture of unaccountable government.

If the heart-breaking findings of Chief Psychiatrist Aaron Groves’ report wasn’t enough, mounted on top were the failure to sanction more than one staffer and two more police inquiries.

Mental Health Minister Leesa Vlahos has been criticised over her handling of the Oakden abuse scandal.

It made little practical difference to the suffering, but Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister Leesa Vlahos’ admittance that she only briefly discussed the Oakden report with a senior bureaucrat responsible for the area during a chance meeting at Bunnings also left jaws on the floor.

Further flippant Facebook posts just begged more questions about what in the hell was actually going on with the Cabinet, and if responsible Westminster government is still a thing.

Premier Jay Weatherill’s soothing assertions that Ms Vlahos should get kudos for calling an inquiry rather than criticism for having left it so late, have now been stunningly rebuked.

It’s the same tired line that was tried after other debacles, including unspeakable failures at Families SA, that was followed by more policy malaise.

Mr Lander seems to have called it out. The anti-corruption boss has broad powers to take this inquiry almost anywhere he likes.

Certainly, there’ll be big problem for any bureaucrat, staffer or minister who was warned about what was going on and failed to act. More intriguing will be his view on guilt by negligence.

In the weeks since this scandal broke, Mr Weatherill has defined ministerial responsibility as “when you become aware of a problem, you account for that problem and you fix it.”

He’s also become fond of another passive definition, offered by former judge Bruce Debelle in his report over the cover-up of child sexual abuse at a western suburbs school, that: “The minister will not be required to resign unless the minister is personally at fault or there is, in the words of two commentators, a ‘smoking gun’ to make the minister directly culpable”.

Patrina Cole’s father died at the Oakden aged care facility in 2014 from a suspicious fall.

Both of these rulings infer that a minister can only be actively guilty of maladministration, and make political virtues of ignorance and incompetence.

They suggest that, for a politician seeking survival, the best approach is to lock yourself away in a quiet room and ignore the world around you. Curiosity becomes the worst quality possible. Getting involved can only lead to trouble.

Mr Lander may seek to rewrite the understanding of what ministers, who get pay packets that the unceasing number of jobless South Australians can only dream of, are expected to do.

One might expect that an ageing minister, as Mr Weatherill was when Oakden came under sanction in 2007, would head down there and poke around a little to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are getting better treatment.

One might ask how a vital public service falls into such a mess, and a toxic culture of abuse and apathy takes hold.

One might also reflect on that striking and fetid statement in Dr Groves’ Oakden report, that “the fish rots from the head”, and search along the corpse’s spine to discover the source of decay.

Another element that must ring alarm bells is the complete lack of control the Government will have over this inquiry.

Mr Lander has previously probed the Gillman land deal. He did not find any ministers guilty of maladministration, but gave one a decent chop on the way through.

The nature of these inquiries is they often raise as many new questions as answers. By calling witnesses to appear or produce documents, they uncover new lines of inquiry and media stories that strangle a government’s ability to push a positive message, especially at campaign time.

And yanking on that loose thread can easily end up with the emperor wearing no clothes.