The Queensland Health Royal Commissions

Abstract

Utilisation of public inquiries and royal commissions in Westminster systems of government is a source of continuing interest. That royal commissions continue to be appointed when there is an increasing array of other institutions governments can now employ and given that royal commission reports often have very adverse impacts on the appointing governments, remains a key issue. So the appointment by the Queensland government of not one, but two royal commissions in 2005 into the same topic -the recruitment and performance of doctors recruited abroad working in Queensland public hospitals -provides a special opportunity to analyse the circumstances in which a royal commission mechanism is activated. That one of these royal commissions had to be disbanded because of legal action taken by several of those being investigated is another reason to assess these royal commissions. This is almost without precedent in Australia and has implications for the future conduct of such bodies. Lastly, how the Queensland government was able to minimise the blame from the subsequent royal commission's highly critical report, is also instructive and worthy of assessment.

The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the public sector: insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care

“…Cultures within failing institutions have been described as ‘closed’, which allowed ‘poor care to continue undetected’ (Thomé ). Bullying has also been reported as a characteristic of care failures in public sector healthcare institutions both within the United Kingdom and within Australia (Commission of Inquiry ; Mullan ; Prasser ). It has been described as a strategy to silence dissent or make workers fearful of repercussions if they raised concerns (Alberti , 287) and reflective of a culture of concealment and reprisal (Prasser ).…”

Australia's Rural Reconstruction Commission, 1943‐46: A Reassessment

“…Most often the chairman will seek to strike a compromise. 81 Extant correspondence suggests that the Perth-based Wise, who was reputed to be a first class negotiator, struggled to rein in his Melbournebased colleagues. The most clearly articulated differences -which had surfaced at public hearings -were between Murphy and Wadham over institutional structures and the extent to which producers could be relied upon to contribute meaningfully to policy making and administration within them.…”

Conceptualising and Categorising Child Abuse Inquiries: From Damage Control to Foregrounding Survivor Testimony

“…In terms of key functions, Prasser distinguishes between inquisitorial and investigatory inquiries and inquiries with an advisory function that focus on policy development. 18 While this taxonomy provides a useful delineation of some key attributes, it has limitations that stem from a classification based on inquiry form, for example, the extent to which royal commissions vis-à-vis parliamentary inquiries may be deemed public. Parliamentary inquiries are excluded from Prasser's definition of public inquiries.…”