Friday, July 31, 2009

Mr Hatzistergos vs Law Society vs Merger

Michael Pelly's piece in today's The Australian "Island Sojourn: Nice Work if you can get it" is well worth perusing. Pelly's article consists of two parts. One centres on the secondment of Justice Spigelman to head a corruption inquiry in Antigua, while the second half draws attention to the unfolding story about the merger of the Office of Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee.

The article stands as another illustration of the ludicrous political and bureaucratic masquerade that affects the entire Attorney General's Department, the courts, and the smaller agencies that have been absorbed into the department.

Pelly notes there appears to have been a remarkable about-face on the part of the NSW Law Society in its stance on the merger of the Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner. He states:

"The NSW opposition was all fired up last month based on a letter from the Law Society president Joe Catanzariti who described the merger as 'regrettable', while drawiing attention to the different client bases and the negligible cost saving of $100,000 a year ... No sooner had opposition legal affairs spokesman Greg Smith finished flaying the merger - while brandishing the Law Society letter - than some new correspondence landed on Hatz's desk. And wasn't the AG happy to read the new position of the Law Society onto the record. "

Between the lines of Pelly's discussion lies the untold story about the lobbying undertaken by the Attorney General, his Director General Mr Glanfield, and other officials.

One lot of lobbying occurred behind the scenes with the Law Society and which players were involved is something that no-one is willing to talk about. While nobody seems willing to talk speculation is rife that officials at the Law Society were treated brusquely. The impression one can form on the basis of the back-flip is that considerable pressure was probably exerted to extract a pro-merger letter of support from the Law Society. What unpleasant words were exchanged is not known. The uncanny feeling one gets is that the letter of support that Pelly mentions was probably obtained begrudgingly.

The other fascinating aspect concerns the lobbying at Macquarie Street to woo cross-bench support for the merger. From last December a grass roots campaign of opposition to the merger began with advocacy groups in the disability sector and clients of the Public Trustee generating letters of alarm and protest. It is understood that senior bureaucrats in the Attorney General's Department went into a furious mental meltdown with accusations that employees were disloyal and leaking information. The bureaucratic suspicion was part of an apparent culture of secrecy cultivated to keep the merger out of the public eye, and certainly clients of both organisations were not officially advised of the proposed merger.

Sources in the grass roots networks have pooh-poohed the claim that information was leaked to them. These sources point out that all information presented in letters was based on a thorough investigation of publicly available annual reports. The campaign of opposition involved direct lobbying, correspondence, and a neat pile of submissions from concerned citizens one of which was over 70,000 words in length.

The Greens had from the beginning of 2009 expressed reservations and reluctance to support the merger in correspondence to advocates in the disability sector and to clients of the Public Trustee.

Why did The Greens do a somersault from being anti-merger to pro-merger? Speculation is rife that a deal was done. Merger legislation to create the NSW Trustee and Guardian (amalgamating Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner) was due for debate in the Legislative Council before the end of June. The week leading up to the scheduled debate the Shooters Party was trying to galvanize support for its proposed bill concerning shooting of animals in National Parks. Sources in the Labor Government made it known to the press that it was having second thoughts about supporting the Shooters' bill. The Labor Government immediately lost the support of the Shooters Party that it so routinely relies on in the Legislative Council. The only way the merger bill could succeed was by this trade-off: Greens support for merger in exchange for Labor squashing the Shooter's bill.

And so it was that the last piece of Government legislation to pass on Tuesday 23 June 2009 was the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act. The following day the Legislative Council was in uproar as all bets were off for government business and the sale of NSW Lotteries was set aside because the numbers were against the Government. The climax was the staged walk-out of most Labor members in the Council on the evening of 24 June. After midnight proceedings ground to a halt. The Council doors were closed with proceedings left hanging in the air -- so that when Parliament resumes in September the Council will still be technically meeting according to hansard on 24 June.

The collapse of the Council's proceedings appears to be directly related to the lobbying by the Minister and Mr Glanfield to get the merger through at all costs.

3 comments:

  1. Great stuff Tom. This story needs to hit the newspapers and radio. An inquiry is needed to officially investigate that merger business. Some heads should roll!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tsk. Tsk. The Cabinet Standing Committee on Service Delivery will be working themselves into a lather on this story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problems caused by the merger are enormous. The money being sucked out of the former Public Trustee to prop up the new entity will run out no matter how miserly the Director General is on budget approvals.

    The terms of reference proposed for the promised Parliamentary Inquiry are a whitewash and a betrayal of the entire disability sector. They also completely exclude the rights and interests of the clients of the former Public Trustee.

    This has got to be turned into a state election issue. The minister has to go. The top bureaucrats in the Attorney General's Department have to go.

    ReplyDelete