Summary

It appears that, in their dogged pursuit to deliver on a Government priority, some respondents lost their way and compromised their professional standards. For some, these compromises were sufficiently serious to constitute a breach, or multiple breaches, of the Code.

Persistence and commitment to delivery are admirable qualities in a public servant, but these attributes must be tempered by an equal commitment to evidence based decision making, critical thinking and open-mindedness.

Ultimately it is about the culture and leadership of the agencies. When poor practices are encouraged and celebrated and leaders themselves model these practices, it takes a particularly courageous public servant to challenge the status quo. The Code makes it clear that public servants are expected to operate with integrity at all times and, sometimes, this requires a display of courage. The Robodebt Scheme provides an example of some public servants adopting a perverse approach to their obligation to serve the government of the day. Serving the government of the day cannot mean simply telling government what it wants to hear or withholding uncomfortable information. Sometimes it means tempering government’s expectations, explaining risks associated with a particular course of action or providing them with alternative options for pursuing their policy agenda.

All respondents were highly experienced public servants with impeccable professional reputations. Despite this experience and capability, many focussed on a single objective – delivering savings by reducing fraud in the welfare system – and were blinkered to the operational, legal, and ethical risks associated with a hastily conceived and poorly executed program.

These public servants lost their objectivity and, in all likelihood, drowned out the deafening and growing criticisms of the Scheme to pursue an operational objective. This apparent single-mindedness manifested itself in different ways in different contexts. Some people relied too heavily on assumptions and entrenched legal views. Almost all failed to challenge the status quo as concerns emerged over time. Where concerns were raised and assurances sought, too few followed up and checked that the assurances were adequately delivered in practice. As a general proposition, even the most experienced public servants demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to have difficult conversations while preserving relationships within and between Departments and with their Ministers. In doing so, they put themselves in the path of a process that would hold them to account for these failings.

It is ironic that, not only did the Robodebt Scheme not deliver the expected savings to Government, the cost to Government to remediate and compensate for the flawed program far exceeded any financial benefit. This is in addition to the incalculable cost to the lives of thousands of Australians and the reputation of the public service.