Fat Cats and the Pezullo report. So keen for secrecy, they’d rather admit failure

In its effort to keep the “Pezzullo Report” secret, the Australian Public Service Commission testified under oath to the Administrative Review Tribunal that it was a failed organisation. Rex Patrick reports.

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) is charged with promoting excellence in the Public Service. Section 41 of the Public Service Act requires the APSC to “promote high standards of integrity and conduct in the Australian Public Service (APS)” and “uphold the APS values, the APS employment principles and the APS code of conduct.”

However, he fails in this task.

Last year MWM reported in the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s Senate submission that RoboDebt was not due to failed leadership, it was not because civil servants were quietly advancing their careers while turning a blind eye to bad things happening on their watch, it was not due to malfeasance or abuse, rather transparency was to blame!

What do Fat Cats say? Excessive transparency caused the Robodebt scandal

We support public officials who break the law

Undeterred by this outrageous claim, APSC went one step further and defended under oath:

Public officials may break the law when faced with the need for transparency.

In defending keeping the Pezzullo report secret, APSC Deputy Commissioner Joanne Talbot argued in a submission to the Administrative Review Tribunal that secrecy was essential in an investigation into a Department Secretary.

The Commission’s failure to take steps to protect the confidentiality of the investigative process to the fullest extent permitted by law (including maintaining applicable exemptions under the FOI Act where applicable) could reasonably be expected to lead to a reduction in the willingness of APS officers (including the subject of the investigation) and the public to report relevant conduct and to co-operate fully with any investigation.

The only problem with Talbot’s position is that it is against the law.

Section 10 of the Civil Service Act requires staff to be professional (in carrying out their roles and responsibilities) in achieving the best possible outcomes for the Australian community and the Government. Section 13 of the Act requires public servants to act honestly and honestly, to comply with all applicable Australian laws and to comply with any lawful and reasonable instructions given by a person authorized to give instructions in the employee’s Agency.

What makes the situation worse is that Section 12 of the Public Service Act requires the Australian Public Service Commissioner and Commission to uphold and uphold the above values ​​and employment principles. However, the Commission clearly prefers secrecy rather than directing public officials to comply with the law.

make up something

Ms. Talbot presented evidence of her involvement in more than 100 workplace investigations, providing evidence that;

If information provided in investigations is made public, future investigations are likely to be negatively affected where individuals will become less candid and forthcoming due to concerns that the information they provide will be disclosed.

Again, the deterrent effect claimed by Ms Talbot is unlawful. Cooling is not allowed.

Furthermore, to properly test the allegation, Ms Talbot was asked during cross-examination how many of the more than 100 workplace investigations in which she had participated involved public disclosure. His answer was “None.” The cat was out of the bag; Ms. Talbot never saw the impact she claimed it would have. He had no experience to back up his claim.

convincing evidence

The Secretary of a Department has the power to compel a witness to give evidence when investigated by the Commissioner. Regarding this, Ms Talbot said:

Witnesses who cooperate fully, openly and honestly are significantly more likely to assist in the conduct of the investigation than witnesses who take a more minimalist approach to providing only the information they are legally obliged to do.

However, on cross-examination Ms Talbot again had to admit that she had used her powers of coercion only once; To obtain documents for the Pezzullo investigation. He had no experience in using coercive powers.

And Mrs. Talbot was completely wrong. As Deputy Britton-Jones stated in court,

Coercion often makes people more comfortable testifying.

Coercion provides protection to a witness; It gives the opportunity to say that their statements are not by grace, but by necessity.

MWM has requested subpoenas for protective reasons in past proceedings. The witness does not have to appear as a willing participant.

It’s getting weird

Another strange statement made by Ms. Talbot regarding algebra is as follows:

Moreover, the exercise of the Commission’s mandatory powers always requires time, expense and resources.

When asked to explain what persuading a witness involved, Ms. Talbot did not know.

Again, MWM Whoever challenges witnesses in court hearings knows that it is not resource-intensive.

It is unclear why Ms. Talbot decided to testify about a matter with which she was unfamiliar; Perhaps APSC’s dependence on secrecy may help explain its behavior.

Fear of blowing the whistle

Ms Talbot also made an argument to the Court that fear of retaliation was a factor that prevented public officials from coming forward to report breaches of the APS Code of Conduct.

I believe that APS staff and the public are likely to be more reluctant to report such information to the Commission if they anticipate that an Agency Head’s report or the information they provide will be widely or publicly disclosed. In particular, such APS employees may be concerned, whether justified or not, about the risk of potential negative impacts on their public service careers, such as the negative impact on working relationships or the perception of how others view them.

How’s that for APSC’s confidence in the protection of public service whistleblowers?

A breach of the APS code of conduct is discloseable conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act for which protection is provided under that Act. The only way to retaliate against a public official who reports a breach of the APS Code of Conduct is if whistleblower protection within the public service is not working.

This was perhaps the truest evidence Mrs. Talbot had ever given. Perhaps he is aware of the impact the investigation into Afghanistan whistleblower David McBride and Internal Revenue Service whistleblower Richard Boyle will have on other public officials.

No conviction for whistleblower Boyle. Call for reforms made after difficulties

Fault. Public officials were silenced

Leaving aside the APSC’s poor decision to keep the Pezzullo report secret, the APSC’s submissions at the Administrative Review Tribunal hearings, and Ms Talbot’s evidence in particular, paint a damning picture of the environment in which Australian public servants work; This is an environment where authorities cannot openly assist in an investigation, even when they are required by law to do so.

because they have no faith that their leadership will protect them.

Even more disgraceful were the submissions and evidence that the APSC was directly responsible for the environment in which public servants found themselves working.

Their statements in the Pezzullo case were an evaluation of their own performance. And they gave themselves an ‘F’.

Caught tangerine. Details of Mike Pezzullo investigation released

Rex Patrick is a former South Australian Senator and formerly a submariner in the armed forces. Known as an anti-corruption and transparency warrior, Rex is also known as “Transparency Warrior“