[russellw]

I've said it before but it bears repeating here.

I'm not sure why they all feel the need to lie about it, especially public servants who are almost unsackable anyway.

What's the worst case? They look stupid? Their career stalls? People burn effigies of them in the street?

It's not like the decision to use private security was, in itself, a bad decision given the speed with which a solution had to be in place. Two other States did exactly the same and either had better security companies or were just plain lucky in not having similar issues. It wouldn't have been a single individual that made the decision anyway so they might as well line up for the collective public rogering and get it over with.

1. If you lie about it then you just look plain bad and if you lie to the inquiry then you've committed an offence that will be career ending anyway;
2. If you are stupid enough to think that the electronic trail wouldn't lead back to you eventually then you deserve to lose your $600k per annum CHO job; and
3. If you think the "I didn't read the detail" excuse gets you off the hook then we can add incompetence to lying and stupidity regardless of how many emails you get per day. Mind you, I agree that such portentous matters shouldn't be left to an email communication but I'd be prepared to bet that there were conversations about the decision.

Let's not forget that while it turned out to be a bad decision, it made reasonable sense at the time it was made and it's only the outcome and media brouhaha that is has made it such a poisoned chalice.

I wonder how many of them would be putting up their hands claiming credit if the decision had been a good one?