Those thousands of Australians so terribly damaged by Robodebt are unlikely to be satisfied by the Robodebt Centralised Code of Conduct Inquiry Report or the associated statement last Friday by the APS Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer. Nor should the public service or the general public. Nor even those who were investigated.
The investigation took way too long. The Robodebt Royal Commission itself took only 11 months to complete its forensic investigation and publish its three-volume report (with another volume provided in confidence to assist investigations of individuals’ alleged misbehaviour).
The APSC’s investigation has taken 14 months before its findings were made public, despite the amount of evidence it had at the beginning.
The only person to lose their job was Kathryn Campbell, and that was 3-½ years after the scheme she had directed was found to be unlawful. (Renee Leon’s appointment was terminated in early 2020, almost certainly not because she had defended the unlawful scheme, but because she was the one who finally told ministers it was unlawful – more on that later.)
Only two people found to have breached the Code of Conduct have been named, even though the Royal Commission identified by name each of those it considered to have failed to meet their duties as public servants.
Indeed, it seems from the report and the APS Commissioner’s statement that the rights and welfare of those investigated were given priority over the public interest in knowing who has been found to have breached the Code of Conduct (and who has been found not to have done so) and why. Of course, procedural fairness is essential, and the mental health and welfare of those investigated must be considered, but the public interest in holding public servants to account, particularly those in senior positions, is overwhelming, given the scale of damage done.
The APS Commissioner notes that Robodebt was “a failure of government” and that the APS “acknowledges its role and takes responsibility for its actions”. What this omits is that, while the scheme did reflect the then government’s general policy approach towards welfare, it originated from within the public service, public servants advised the government to agree to it, public servants failed to advise frankly on its unlawful basis, public servants implemented it in ways inconsistent with the benevolent nature of social security legislation, public servants ignored concerns from welfare recipients, peak advocacy groups and external experts (and their own front office staff), and public servants misled the Ombudsman and other institutional checks and balances. More than anything else, Robodebt was a failure of the public service.
More names should have been released
The APS Commissioner does have discretion under the Public Service Act to release the names of those under investigation (whether found to have breached the Code or not) if he........