Although a full public inquiry would be better, it鈥檚 still welcome news that the sa国际传媒 government intends to remove at least one obstacle to the ombudsperson鈥檚 investigation of the Health Ministry firings. Every effort should be made to clear the way for a probe that could, finally, provide a complete and satisfactory explanation of this sorry mess.
The government wants ombudsperson Jay Chalke to investigate how a tip in March 2012 about possible data mismanagement and contract irregularities in the Health Ministry鈥檚 pharmaceutical division led three months later to the dismissal of eight researchers. An all-party legislative committee is pondering that request, and if it decides to assign the task to the ombudsperson, he cannot refuse.
However, Chalke appeared before the committee Wednesday and requested that the firings not be handed to his office unless the committee is unanimous in its request and that the Ombudsperson Act be changed.
His hesitation is completely justified. The sa国际传媒 Liberal government has come to this point grudgingly. While apologies were eventually given to some of the fired workers and some positions reinstated, the government has not been able to explain why the firings happened. A previous investigation was so hampered by limitations of scope that it only deepened the controversy, adding to perceptions of a coverup and an effort to deflect political damage.
Hence Chalke鈥檚 insistence on unanimity.
鈥淚f we deliver an investigation report, even a high-quality investigation, into an environment that has been so polarized that it is not perceived as credible, then what鈥檚 the point?鈥� he said Wednesday. 鈥淣othing would have been gained.鈥�
The section of the Ombudsperson Act Chalke was concerned about relates to 鈥渟tatutory confidentiality provisions鈥� pertaining to health data protection and privacy protection statutes such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He said if that section of the act is left unchanged, it could lead to lengthy litigation, and prevent him from interviewing necessary witnesses.
His concerns were at first dismissed by the government on the grounds that the change wasn鈥檛 necessary, but Attorney General Suzanne Anton wrote to the legislative committee Thursday that she will introduce legislation next week to change the act to conform to Chalke鈥檚 request.
And so she should. If Chalke鈥檚 investigation has any hope of succeeding, he must have free rein. If the phrase 鈥渙ut of scope鈥� gets in his way even once, in any form, it will sink the investigation back into the black political muck from which the fiasco sprang. The government鈥檚 credibility on this issue, negligible from the start, has been eroded by the subsequent half-hearted attempts to clear it up.
Civil servants sign confidentiality agreements; those pertinent to the issue need to be set aside so people can speak freely or, if they are not so inclined, be compelled to testify. The government cannot decide which doors will be opened and which doors will remain closed.
In a public inquiry, testimony is heard in public. The ombudsperson conducts interviews in private, then releases a report when an investigation is completed. Chalke will need complete freedom to reveal in his report what information is revealed to him. Any stonewalling or hesitation on the part of elected or appointed officials to be open and truthful will weaken his report. Any restrictions on the scope of his investigation will doom it from the start.
Enough of the bits-and-pieces approach. Enough of token investigations and lame excuses.
This is a situation that demands a public inquiry, but the government has chosen otherwise. If Chalke is to succeed, the government and all involved must ensure he can do a thorough investigation.
