14 August 2024

A good move not to allow former APS agency heads to escape Robodebt accountability

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
16
Dr Gordon de Brouwer

There is no escaping APS Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer now for those former agency heads involved in Robodebt. Photo: APSC.

It’s a sure sign the federal government is feeling the public outrage at the dearth of accountability over Robodebt that it is rushing new legislation through parliament in the hope of delivering a head or two.

Struggling in the polls with an election on the horizon, Labor needs something to remind voters that it’s “on their side” and that it’s championing the cause of the underdog.

That’s a tough gig and not everyone’s buying it.

A 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators is one way for the government to say “we’re here for you” and it is certainly going to town this week in parliament reminding everyone of just how “generous” it is being on that front.

There’s no greater soapbox than the shame of Robodebt, however, to reinforce in the minds of Australians that the Coalition was mean and ruthless when last in government.

The illegal automated debt recovery program that caused so much harm to so many people was indeed a product of the Coalition.

Since coming to office, Labor has dined out on that fact alone.

READ ALSO Draft laws promise accountability for former APS bosses over Robodebt

Anthony Albanese instigated the Royal Commission into the scheme, which was extremely thorough and delivered a massive report naming a sizeable number of players for alleged reprehensible conduct.

The problem for Labor, though, was that Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes kept part of that report sealed – the part that referred people to the Australian Federal Police, to the Australian Public Service Commission, to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and to the ACT Law Society.

It recommended civil and criminal prosecutions.

Government Services Minister Bill Shorten lamented to the National Press Club yesterday (13 August) that he’s not winning the battle to have the sealed section released publicly.

Bill Shorten at the National Press Club

Bill Shorten is keeping up the fight to unseal sections of the Robodebt Royal Commission findings. Photo: Fernanda Pedroso (NPC).

The problem remains then, as far as the public is aware, that there hasn’t been much by way of prosecution.

The NACC decided not to investigate the six people the Royal Commission strongly recommended it should.

That decision immediately became the subject of an investigation itself after the NACC’s independent Inspector Gail Furness, responding to a public outcry, stepped in to enquire as to how the corruption watchdog came to the conclusion it did.

The AFP investigated allegations a witness provided false testimony to the Royal Commission but concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone.

The APSC has conducted investigations into current and former public servants over breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. A total of 16 current and former APS employees were referred to the commissioner for code of conduct scrutiny over the illegal scheme.

The Royal Commission only referred current APS employees to the commissioner for possible sanction, but the APSC itself also referred past serving public servants and former agency heads to its centralised code of conduct mechanism.

The former employees were included to ensure equitable treatment.

Former employees were referred by their most recent agency heads, while former agency heads included in the list were referred by Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher following advice from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Glyn Davis.

Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, in answering questions during recent Senate Estimates appearances, has talked of sanctions for some but also the innocence or too low thresholds for breaches of others.

No names have been released, but the commissioner is due to deliver a report into his investigations.

READ ALSO Protecting MPs should have a greater value placed on it

It’s a fair question for the public to be asking just where accountability is for the reprehensible behaviour of some people in power during Robodebt.

So today (14 August), the Federal Government is introducing an amendment to the Public Service Act to give the APS Commissioner an express power to investigate and make determinations against former agency heads.

It seems one or more former agency heads made a case to the commissioner that he didn’t have those powers under the Act as it stands and so could not legally investigate them.

Perhaps they thought they had found a loophole by which they could escape accountability for their own roles in Robodebt.

They probably did find a loophole. But the government has moved to close it.

The commissioner will soon have the express power to investigate these former agency heads.

He actually investigated them, but now his findings will be delivered under the security of tighter legal grounds.

That’s a good move.

The government needs a political bounce, and it hopes this decisive move might bring it.

The nation needs to see someone – many even – brought to account for what they did to the most vulnerable of Australians.

Join the conversation

16
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The Royal Commission proved that staff from the front counters to the legal office advised senior managers and ministers that the scheme was illegal, and they proceeded anyway. All those responsible should go to jail as the criminals they are.

It was criminal what Robodebt done to people, those involved in this criminality should face action.

It was pretty easy to avoid.

A great move to make those senior public servants accountable, but it doesn’t address all of the problem. The ministers and prime ministers who thought up the scheme have all walked away without repercussions. Their hands are even dirtier than the senior public servants. Please prosecute those public servants involved, but don’t allow them to be scapegoats for ministerial failures.

Legislation to punish things retrospectively is never a good idea.

@Ken M

Gonna bet you have no issues with the retrospective legislative changes to ensure an administrator is appointed for CFMEU?

Facts are legal action should be taken against the parties responsible for Robodebt, both Public servants and prime/ministers, to ensure what these… “people” did to Australia’s most vulnerable is a one off and they will live in fear doing it in the future.

If that legislation seeks to punish individuals for things that were not crimes at the time they occurred, you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll be against them.

Attempting to punish people for things that were not illegal when they occurred is wrong and sets a horrible precedent.

kant komplain2:48 pm 14 Aug 24

Wtf ????? Are you serious ?

Ken, it was a crime at the time. Phoney debt notices were issued. Withholding of allowances and garnishing of wages happened. The government (both ministers and senior public servants) knew they were phoney debt notices. The scheme proceeded under “it’s up to you to prove our phoney debt notice was wrong”. This was theft, plain and simple.

No it wasn’t theft, whether you like it or not. If it was theft, it wouldn’t require changes in legislation and retrospective powers to punish people. Don’t be absurd.

The proposed legislative changes for appointing an administrator for the CFMEU is about a future action and is not retrospective. There is an important principle here, enacting legislation for purposes of punishing a past event (that has already been investigated and reported) sets up a slippery slope. Imagine what would happen if legislation was passed to retrospectively apply changed speed limits (e.g. someone who was caught 65 in the Northbourne 60 zone before it was changed, is now re-charged because that speed is now 25 over the 40 limit).

Ken, it was theft. The change in the legislation is to stop people hiding behind their office to avoid prosecution (the old “I was just following orders” cop-out). It isn’t changing the fact that the debt notices were illegally raised. The only question should be is if they knew at the time that what they were doing was illegal – and it came out in the RC that they had been given that legal advice, which they buried.

With respect, you’ve misunderstood the nature of the amendment.

This amendment will allow the actions of former agency heads (ie agency heads who have since left the APS) to be investigated and determined as potential breaches of the Code of Conduct. An existing power to do exactly the same thing was inserted into the PS Act as part of the 2013 amendments.

It will not penalise people for acts that were fine at the time; agency heads are bound by the Code of Conduct in the same way as their employees.

Nor, on my reading, does the Bill include any power to impose a sanction on a former agency head; which is the same as the situation for other former APS employees.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.