Dean Jaensch: Good policy, which would have dealt with the horrors of Oakden, was abandoned

ICAC Commissioner Bruce Lander correctly called the minister’s alleged lack of knowledge about Oakden “breathtaking”, but there’s much we still don’t know, writes Dean Jaensch.

• Abraham: Jay and incompetent ministers don’t get it
• ICAC: Vlahos tried to blame others and take credit
• How SA’s system failed vulnerable aged care residents
• Spy cameras to be set up in wake of Oakden report

THE Oakden aged care facility matter is far from resolved – by a very long stretch.

There are many questions still to be answered in a way that will give some indication that those who were responsible will be forced to acknowledge their responsibility and face the consequences. A fundamental issue concerns ministerial responsibility.

Six ministers have had Oakden in their portfolios. Under Westminster principles, ministers are totally responsible to the Parliament for their actions, their staff’s actions, and the management of official decisions. If they are not carrying this out properly, what are we paying them to do? A lack of knowledge is no excuse for ministers.

In his report, ICAC Commissioner Bruce Lander correctly called the alleged lack of knowledge about Oakden “breathtaking”.

But he stopped short of calling it maladministration. He instead correctly applied a strict legal definition.

Premier Jay Weatherill has maintained Oakden was “never drawn to Cabinet’s attention”. It should have been. On the other hand, Mr Lander found that many briefing notes were sent to ministers from health officials. Were these simply ignored? Were any of these merely tabled in Cabinet, and not “officially” received?

Premier Weatherill seems to be responding to questions about Vlahos with the response she is not in his team. But is that good enough?

Why did the Premier deny Mr Lander access to Cabinet documents? It would slightly bend the convention that Cabinet documents are secret, but if the access was restricted only to the Commissioner, then secrecy from the public would be maintained.

Over the whole Oakden period who was actually governing the state? This is raised by the fact that unions were allowed to veto government policymaking. Prior to the 2014 election, there was a proposal to reform the structure and management of Oakden, and transfer it to the private sector. The government did not proceed with this proposal.

Former Mental Health Minister Leesa Vlahos. Picture: Bianca De Marchi

Mr Lander was told that “there was no political will [within the government] to change [the status of Oakden] to avoid war with the unions”. Hence good policy, which would have dealt with the continuing horrors of Oakden, was abandoned. Internal party politics, unions and factions, made the decision.

Union power also decided to elevate ex-minister Leesa Vlahos to the top position on Labor’s Legislative Council ticket. Premier Weatherill seems to be responding to questions about Vlahos with the response she is not in his team. But is that good enough?

It is an established pattern that ministers, once they leave a portfolio, and are asked about any issue within their former portfolio can simply use the defence that they are no longer the “responsible minister”. Such cop-outs abound throughout the Oakden affair. It’s time they were exposed and dealt with.