Tahitian Prince case a warning sign of failing system

The infamous case of fake “Tahitian Prince” Joel Morehu-Barlow has been referenced in the Coaldrake Review as an example of poor performance management and the lack of rigour in the appointment of public servants.

The infamous case of fake “Tahitian Prince” Joel Morehu-Barlow has been referenced in the Coaldrake Review as an example of poor performance management and the lack of rigour in the appointment of public servants.

Professor Peter Coaldrake said performance management was a “fundamental building block in the integrity system”, and Barlow was promoted and given higher levels of responsibility despite questions over his performance.

Joel Morehu- Barlow.

Morehu-Barlow would go on to steal almost $17m from Queensland Health, having convinced his colleagues and friends he was a member of the Tahitian royal family as he showered them with lavish gifts.

“He had a criminal record and was wanted for questioning in New Zealand relating to a fraud,” the report notes.

“He provided a fabricated academic records to the department. There were questions about his performance from very early on in his career at Queensland Health, but he was nevertheless successively promoted and given higher levels of responsibility.

“At every point in his story there were warning signs, and failures to act; but at the most basic level, rigorous appointment and performance management could have averted the whole sorry saga.”

Prof Coaldrake said no one should supervise staff without both initial training and regular upskilling.

“A manager who deals with problems promptly and appropriately generates confidence and trust in their workforce,” he wrote.

Prof Coaldrake said there also needed to be confidence in the recruitment and selection process to foster “trust both outside of and within the public sector”, which “counters the risk of politicisation”.

A complaint had been made to the corruption watchdog about Morehu-Barlow’s behaviour in 2010, 15 months before he took $11m in a single transaction, sparking an investigation.

But the then-Crime and Misconduct Commission failed to act and the complaint was handballed back to QH, which was advised by his then-manager that there were no concerns.