Two independent investigations affirm the conduct of the APS Commissioner in the Robodebt Code of Conduct Inquiry
Statement by the APS Commissioner
On 13 September 2024, I finalised the Centralised Code of Conduct Inquiry into the Robodebt Scheme and published the final report. The Inquiry was robust and extensive. It examined the actions and decisions of 16 public servants associated with the Robodebt scheme. The Inquiry found that 12 current and former public servants and agency heads breached the APS Code of Conduct on 97 occasions. Breaches in the 12 cases ranged in gravity from moderate to very serious.
Following that Inquiry, two people made separate formal complaints to the Merit Protection Commissioner about my conduct in the Robodebt Code of Conduct Inquiry, constituting a combined 10 allegations that I breached the APS Code of Conduct. The Merit Protection Commissioner is responsible for inquiries into alleged breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by the APS Commissioner.
The Merit Protection Commissioner delegated their powers of investigation to two arms-length senior public servants who each appointed an independent expert to investigate the allegations in how I performed my duties as Australian Public Service Commissioner in the Robodebt Inquiry. The two consecutive investigations took place from October 2024 to April 2025.
The independent expert for the first investigation of 7 allegations was Professor John McMillan AO, a former Ombudsman, acting Integrity Commissioner and Information Commissioner. The independent expert for the second investigation of 3 allegations was Mr Greg Wilson, a former Secretary and acting Public Service Commissioner in the Victorian Public Service.
The Delegates and the Independent Investigators found that
- none of the allegations were substantiated, and
- I had not breached the APS Code of Conduct.
Consequently, both investigations were concluded.
The independent investigations have affirmed my conduct as APS Commissioner in overseeing the Robodebt Inquiry, including making my Public Statement of 13 September 2024.
They have confirmed the propriety of the APSC’s Robodebt Inquiry and its findings.
For further transparency, the 7 allegations made by the first complainant were, at a high level:
- lack of impartiality,
- misuse of an official position for personal gain,
- causing an inquiry to be commenced without basis,
- requiring the complainant to respond to an inaccurate and oppressive draft statement,
- releasing inaccurate and damaging information,
- discrimination against the complainant, and
- allowing a personal view to colour the findings.
The 3 allegations made by the second complainant were, at a high level:
- improper disclosure of information,
- inappropriate advice about legal assistance, and
- a lack of a legal basis for inquiry.
This week, the Merit Protection Commission released redacted documents about the first investigation to a member of the public in response to Freedom of Information requests made earlier this year.
Given that I am reasonably identifiable in the documents, it is in the public interest to address any speculation on this matter and to maintain the reputation of the office of Australian Public Service Commissioner.
In one of the released documents, Professor McMillan states that “a complaint … is self-evidently a matter that must be dealt with thoroughly and transparently. … there is … a broader public interest in the complaint issues being properly examined.”
I strongly support this. It is essential that integrity officers, including myself as Australian Public Service Commissioner, are not exempt from the processes that other public servants are subject to. The process that I underwent – as it was for those people who were investigated for breaches of the Code in the Robodebt Inquiry – was forensic, thorough, independent and procedurally fair.
With respect to the first investigation, Professor McMillan concluded: “None of these allegations have been sustained.”
To ensure public transparency and completeness, I also include the assessment from the second investigation. Mr Wilson concluded with respect to the second investigation that the breach allegations could not be sustained and that the facts do not require a more formal examination. He recommended that the complaint not be progressed to an inquiry.
Dr Gordon de Brouwer
31 July 2025