IN A previous post, I took the NSW Government to task for playing silly buggers when it instituted a criminal enquiry into the Ruby Princess debacle. 

The announcement of a general enquiry put my concerns to rest, but only temporarily. It is extremely disappointing that they are still at it, muddying the waters to shield the decision-makers. 

On Tuesday the enquiry into the Ruby Princess fiasco headed by Brett Walker SC, opened with a bang that rattled the witness box, but failed to even remotely address the true issue – the failure of the government to competently deal with the disembarkation of COVID-19 positive passengers. 

BERATED

Kelly-Anne Ressler, a Health Department employee, who was not involved in the decision-making process, took one for the team as enquiry chairman Walker SC, a highly respected and skilful barrister, cut to the chase and berated her for the “reprehensible shortcomings” of NSW Health.

The only problem was that the hapless Ms Ressler was only a foot soldier who had taken no part in setting up the protocols for dealing with the Coronavirus.

In a manoeuvre worthy of a chess master, the government kept the royal pieces safe in the back squares by sacrificing a pawn to take the initial onslaught of criticism for the mismanagement of disembarking passengers.

This ploy not only diverted attention away from the decision-makers, but evoked sympathy for NSW Health, with even Prime Minister Morrison admonishing Walker SC for his incisive but harsh comments.

I have no doubt that when all is said and done, the government is hoping some of that sympathy will rub off on the real culprits, the decision-makers.

ADVANTAGE

As in a game of chess, with each lesser piece being taken off the board, the power of the elite pieces (for lack of a better description) grows: pathways open up, enabling them to move with ever increasing advantage.

Surely an enquiry that ranges from decision-making to implementation, should logically start with the decision-making and only go onto decision implementation once it is established what protocols were decided upon by those at the top of the administrative hierarchy.

For the findings of the enquiry to have a modicum of credibility, it is imperative that the focus remains at all times, on the decision-makers and not the public servants tasked with implementing the instructions they are given. In the final analysis, their actions are controllable by appropriate supervision.

The first witness should have been the NSW Minister for Health: what directives did he give to the department regarding the establishment of protocols, what protocols were put in place and finally what supervision was undertaken to ensure compliance?

SQUIRMING

Once these basic matters are determined, the enquiry could in its proper context, establish the facts of as to how things went wrong.

I have no doubt that in the end, the enquiry under the chairmanship of Brett Walker SC, one of the finest legal minds in Australia, the playmakers in this unfortunate saga, will stop wriggling and start squirming.PC

JurisDiction

MAIN PHOTOGRAPH: NSW Health employee Kelly-Ann Ressler. (courtesy ABC)