Well, if the cat is the referral of public servants by the Robodebt Royal Commission for code of conduct investigations now being dealt by the Public Service Commission, the answer is a long time.
When the referrals were made the Commission brought in a couple of senior former officials, presumably as consultants, and the hope may have been that they would promptly tidy the cases up.
Alas investigations have now being plodding on for eight months and their end would not seem to be in sight.
At the current rate of “progress” (roughly speaking), these proceedings will last a good deal longer than the eleven months the Royal Commission took to complete its inquiries and report.
The International Tribunal established in November 1945 to consider allegations of war crimes against 21 Nazi officials – the so-called Nuremburg Trials – also did its business in eleven months. It may have been oiled by victors’ justice but these trials were complex, were saddled with eight judges from four countries and had to use a bespoke system not an existing one.
The Public Service Commission has been sensitive enough about the time being taken on the Robodebt referrals for the Commissioner, Dr de Brouwer, to table a statement on them at a Senate Estimates Committee on 13 February. He said that of the 16 referrals made by the Commission:
- 15 “have progressed to the issuing of notices outlining the grounds and categories for potential breach of the code of conduct”
- four “have also proceeded to the next stage of preliminary determinations of breach of the code”
- “with 11 still under investigation”, and
- one has concluded “as the individual’s actions did not meet the threshold to issue a notice of suspected breach”.
In explaining code investigations in general terms, de Brouwer says that “To ensure procedural fairness, the person being investigated has the right to respond at multiple stages of the inquiry process….The person may draw on legal advice…may request an extension of time to respond…[and that] it is not unusual for a process to take between 6 and 12 months.”
Disappointingly, de Brouwer’s statement doesn’t include any specific explanation of why the Robodebt referrals are taking so long or give any indication of when it might finish up. Eight months for four “preliminary determinations” = one every two months. Sure such things can take a reasonable time but the results to date with two very senior officials working on them after a Royal Commission that thoroughly ploughed the ground, de Brouwer would have done well to comprehensively and clearly explain the Jarndyce v Jarndyce tempo of the Robodebt referral investigations.
Certainly the pace (sic) of these is in sharp distinction to the final treatment of Ms Kathryn Campbell who was head of relevant departments when the Robodebt scheme was hatched. It might be recalled that immediately after the last election, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Davis, the then Public Service Commissioner, Mr Woolcott and the Defence Department Secretary, Mr Moriarty, arranged, apparently without any checks on Ms Campbell’s part on the Robodebt, for her to be given a job in Defence on a salary of circa $900000 pa. When she didn’t come out all that well in the Robodebt Royal Commission, public anxiety about her highly paid job swelled. No doubt uninfluenced by such politics, Mr Moriarty, promptly stopped paying her salary and she resigned shortly thereafter. That is, a $900k penalty was imposed without much evident due process as per Dr de Bouwer’s explanations cited in two paras above.
Anyway, the Public Service Commission and the consultant help it has engaged to assist, should further bend their backs to finalise the Robodebt referrals with as much haste as it can muster for if this goes on much longer concerns that “justice delayed is justice denied” could legitimately arise.
Whenever the referrals are finalised, Dr de Brouwer should fully explain the processes used, the names of those against whom findings were made, the nature of those findings and any penalties imposed in each case. de Brouwer is right to point out that “A code of conduct investigation is not a public civil or criminal investigation. Because it occurs legally within the employment relationship….”. That and relevant provisions of the Public Service Act do not preclude however the disclosure of full details of the results of the investigations where that is in the public interest, as in this case it patently is.
Citizens, and in particular those damaged by the Robodebt scheme, have every right to expect nothing less and de Brouwer should exercise his legal discretions to see those expectations are satisfied in full.
There is evident weariness abroad when in scandal after scandal few seem to be held personally responsible even for the most dramatic failures. Recent evidence by the Auditor-General and former Public Service Commissioner, Andrew Podger, to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts inquiry on integrity in the Public Service have made this point. Too often it’s the fault of “the system” with responsibility too infrequently being sheeted home to individuals.
Ms Stephanie Foster’s recent excusing of staff in Home Affairs involved in the administration of dodgy contracts is just the latest depressing example. Finding those responsible for these failings is apparently too hard and would, so it’s reported, require “the wisdom of Solomon”. But citizens legitimately expect public servants to do hard things, as they do every day in the many Solomonic life and death decisions they take. Not holding individuals accountable sets perverse incentives. If the harms of irresponsible work are not brought to book, why should individuals worry about being scrupulous? And in the Home Affairs dodgy contracts case surely it wouldn’t take the “wisdom of Solomon” for Ms Foster to find out who signed them.
Dr de Brouwer says “I welcome public scrutiny.” That is of no consequence. It doesn’t matter a fig if he welcomes or resents scrutiny. What matters is that he and other “leaders” in the Public Service are open and accountable and that what they do matches what they say.
Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
