The refusal to release the Pezzullo investigation report highlights a culture of secrecy across the public service and government.

For those who do not know or who have forgotten, Mike Pezzullo was an officer of the Department of Defence who in 2017 ascended to be the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs.

Some think Pezzullo may have been influential in the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio. If so, that’s not exactly a feather in his cap as the structure of the organisation is irrational and so it has been a source of constant failure and political embarrassment.

Pezzullo’s rule in Home Affairs ended on 27 November 2023 after masses of communications he’d had with Scott Briggs (described as a Liberal Party “power broker” of all things) were leaked to the media. These communications were so remarkably indiscreet and inappropriate, that Lynelle Briggs, a former Public Service Commissioner, was engaged to investigate. As a consequence of her report, Pezzullo was dismissed for 14 disciplinary offences. Now just about all traces of him have been expunged from the Home Affairs website including his many speeches and orations most of which were famous for their pretension and hilarity. It’s a shame.

In the post Home Affairs phase of his career, Pezzullo has become a pundit with the Murdoch press recently writing that a “key question” for the Bell Royal Commission on the Bondi atrocities should be whether the temporary removal of ASIO from the Home Affairs portfolio after the 2022 federal election might be relevant. Well, by all means ask that question but the fact that ASIO took the alleged Bondi gunmen off its watch list in 2019 when it was a part of Home Affairs then headed by Pezzullo might be more pertinent.

Moreover well before the Bondi shootings ASIO had been placed back within the Home Affairs portfolio. That also should be a very pertinent consideration for the Royal Commission.

But to return to Pezzullo’s dismissal on 27 November 2023.

On that day the Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a media statement on Ms Briggs’s conclusions on what it called “five overarching allegations” against Pezzullo which it summarised in announcing its coup de grace. The statement ended by saying that “No further information regarding the contents of the inquiry will be provided…”.

The Commission subsequently refused a Freedom of Information Act request for Briggs’s report or a redacted version of its executive summary because it claimed, among other things, that:

• such a disclosure “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct of future investigations”; and
• an “edited version would leave only a skeleton of the document that conveys little of its substance” and that it would “not be reasonably practicable to prepare an edited version.”

That decision was appealed to the Information Commissioner who said that any decision about the release of the Briggs report should be done by the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

And that’s the line now being taken by in the Administrative Review Tribunal by the “Transparency Warrior”, Rex Patrick, a former submariner and South Australian Senator. In the course of those proceedings Patrick has succeeded in having much of Briggs’s report on Pezzullo released. In a series of articles in Michael West Media, Patrick has published the considerable parts of Briggs’s report he’s obtained, and he’s provided extensive commentary thereon. It’s quite a revelation and it puts paid to the nonsense of the PSC’s claims that an edited version of Briggs’s report “would be only a skeleton of the document that conveys little of its substance…that would not be practicable to prepare.”

From what has been disclosed it’s clear Briggs’s report is a thorough and conscientious effort which can give the public confidence that the allegations against Pezzullo have been properly investigated and that he has been fairly treated. Such a reassurance could not be gained from the PSC’s one page media statement of 27 November 2023. Indeed, the Commission’s statement is a shadowy and inadequate summary of Briggs’s conclusions.

The PSC’s refusal to release the Briggs report is at one with its refusal to name only two of the public servants it investigated following the Robodebt Royal Commission, a stance now effectively ridiculed by the Anti-Corruption Commission’s decision to do exactly that.

It is also at one with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s (PM&C) false invocation of the Privacy Act to refuse to answer a media inquiry about the basis and terms of the separation of the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Natalie James, and then providing that information when it was requested in a parliamentary committee hearing. Sure the PM&C Secretary, Dr Kennedy, has a lot on his plate but not so much as to insist that his staff behave consistently and without abusing the Privacy Act.

There is something in PSC claims about the need for a degree of confidentiality in the workings of the personnel management in the public service but not near as much as it asserts. Will the disclosures Rex Patrick has forced on Briggs’ report on Pezzullo “prejudice the conduct of future investigations”? That’s just a load of self-serving cant.

The Albanese government has developed a strong reputation for keeping its cards close to its chest while paying lip service to transparency. It’s true colours have been recently displayed in its failed attempt to further restrict the working of the Freedom of Information Act.

These colours are being reflected in the attitudes and habits of the PSC and PM&C, the very agencies that should be modelling the Public Service Act values of openness and accountability.

As there’s now a changing of the guard at the PSC, there’s a chance for a new Public Service Commissioner to do much better than her/his predecessor. It’s to be hoped so, although that would go against the government’s basic instinct for secrecy. Hope for the best but be ready to fret about something much less than that.