Insight 2: Delegating functions while retaining accountability
The Taskforce observed some respondents deflect accountability for decisions and actions, in effect ‘finger pointing’ to attribute responsibility for actions undertaken. Whilst no person is singularly accountable for the design and delivery of the Scheme, the unfortunate combination of multiple individual failings when there were opportunities to intervene effectively contributed to the progressive systemic failures. At times, the APS needs the capability to develop complex innovation at pace. A careful and diligent response in such circumstances requires proactive steps to ensure that material risks are identified, analysed and responded to. In some critical instances, specific leadership culture at the time the Scheme was being developed and rolled out missed or hindered opportunities to achieve such an outcome, with major and catastrophic consequences.
Occupying a position in the APS means that a public servant is accountable for their work and, in the case of leaders, the work of their team. The more senior the leader, the greater the accountability. The Taskforce heard from a number of respondents that the only way to manage large teams with multiple, competing policy and service delivery priorities is to delegate functions.
Senior leaders can – and should – delegate functions to more junior staff to build technical and subject matter capability and confidence. Delegating functions is a constructive way to manage large workloads and complex, broad portfolios of responsibility. Delegating functions is not the same as delegating accountability. Leaders remain accountable for their own work and the work of their delegates. Senior leaders must ensure their teams have the resources, capability and information they need to do their job well. To some degree (which may be context specific) they are entitled to rely on the expertise of others. But that also may not absolve them of their own personal accountability. They need systems in place to hold subordinates accountable, be alert to signals that ‘all may not be well’ and seek further advice and be curious and prepared to challenge to ensure that the ‘received wisdom’ remains appropriate to the contemporary context. When things go wrong, senior leaders must be accountable and humble in acknowledging that mistakes have been made. At critical times, if some senior public servants had been more courageous when it became apparent that the Scheme had serious flaws in its design and delivery, the Scheme may not have been left to continue for as long as it did. In the course of these inquiries, the Taskforce repeatedly observed very senior leaders deflecting and pointing the finger at their peers, their leaders and, most disappointingly, their junior staff to explain their own inaction or inadequate actions.
Too often in the course of these inquiries, the Taskforce was presented with evidence of large and unsustainable workloads as justification for why sufficient attention was not paid to the legal, ethical, and operational risks of the Scheme. In almost all of these cases, it was SES-level respondents who sought to present ‘busyness’ as a justification.
Busyness is a real challenge for many APS, particularly at the SES level and, too often, the quality of work is sacrificed in the interests of simply completing volumes of work. The Code imposes obligations on all public servants to perform their work with care and diligence. A senior public servant who prioritises volume over quality is at risk of breaching the Code. This means that strategies need to be employed to deliberately create time for reflection and review.
SES hold leadership positions in which they can create the space and capacity for themselves and their teams to perform their roles with care and diligence, even amidst the busyness of competing and emerging priorities. Through effective delegation, clear prioritisation and pragmatic governance, SES can build a culture where care and diligence are prioritised and not sacrificed in the face of operational demands.
Some respondents had periods of acting in more senior positions at critical times. APS officers who enjoy the benefits of performing higher duties must also assume the full obligations of the role. While acting in higher duties may be a mitigating factor when considering a sanction, it is not a defence for poor decision-making made while acting in more senior roles.
Insight 2.1 – Conflicting Accountabilities
A number of respondents described ‘conflicting’ accountabilities; accountabilities that arise from their duties as a public servant and, in most cases, a member of the SES, coupled with professional standards accountabilities that derive from their professional qualifications. Public servants bring a diverse range of professional and personal skills and experiences to their work. In some cases these are formal qualifications and memberships to professional associations such as state and territory Law Societies, the Institute of Public Accountants, or the Medical Board of Australia. Ongoing registration with these bodies requires compliance with tailored standards of professional conduct. The Taskforce noted that, in matters where respondents identified a conflict between their APS accountabilities and their professional association accountabilities, professional accountabilities were consistently prioritised. In a number of matters, respondents sought to justify their actions or, more commonly, inaction with respect to the design, rollout and ongoing management of the Scheme by reference to their professional obligations with their incorrect perception that those obligations overrode their responsibilities under the Code.
The Taskforce did not identify circumstances where professional obligations were inconsistent with the Code. At the core of all professional practice standards is an expectation that the employee will deliver a service to a client that is of a high quality and will, at all times, behave with honesty, integrity and consistent with the law. A public servant is answerable to their employing Department or Agency but cannot forget that it is, in fact, the Australian public who is ultimately the client via the elected government of the day.
The APSC is working to embed principles of accountability for performance, encouraging Agencies to seek opportunities to understand and reflect on culture and leadership standards. In 2023, the APSC developed the ‘SES Performance Leadership Framework’ which provides “an overarching set of requirements that will be applied across the APS to embed a culture of transparency and accountability for SES performance”[11] This framework will be implemented APS wide by 2025. The Secretaries Charter of Leadership Behaviours[12] further affirms the standards and expectations of Agency leadership within the APS. Both of these documents set out clear expectations for the APS Senior Leadership and identify expected behaviours and attributes that were not consistently demonstrated by some leaders during the Robodebt era.