How did public service leaders talk to staff about Robodebt? What they said – or didn’t – is revealing

The release of Rick Morton’s brand-new book Mean Touch brings a renewed emphasis on the lessons from Robodebt. To learn from such a severe dilemma, organisations require to freely challenge what happened, understand and discuss what the failing suggests.

In the six months after the royal payment report’s release, nearly half of the heads of Australian Civil service (APS) firms obviously determined they really did not need to communicate with their team concerning Robodebt and describe what it implied for them.

Exploring the scheme, which ran under the Morrison federal government, Commissioner Catherine Holmes was interrupted by “the lengths to which public servants were prepared to visit require ministers”, threatening the concept of impartiality and frank and brave suggestions.

3 days after the royal compensation record was launched, the assistant of the Department of the Head Of State and Closet, Glyn Davis, and Australian Civil Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, emailed all civil service workers claiming:

Our focus, nevertheless, gets on exactly how leaders of private divisions and firms responded. Using Flexibility of Info (FOI) demands, we asked exactly how leaders connected with personnel in the crucial period right after the commission reported.

Three big departments told us that “no papers were determined” or “the Division does not hold files […] that fulfill the regards to the request”. This indicates they did not interact with staff in the very first six months after the Robodebt report was passed on. The departments were:

Departments are closest to preachers, so we wished their interactions would address issues in the relationships between elderly public servants and preachers, a key concern exposed in the Robodebt situation.

It is not needed to react to the Royal Commission and there are no records that are appropriate to your demand.

They kept in mind that “provided most of our people come from the personal sector”, there was a demand to boost training on “our responsibilities as public slaves”.

In a similar way, Australian statistician David Gruen stressed creating a society where “individuals really feel supported if and when they seek to elevate difficult issues with their colleagues or superiors”. Similar conversations were had at AUSTRAC.

The division of sector and scientific research was the most detailed. Secretary Meghan Quinn wrote to staff several times, reflecting that the “searchings for most likely to the heart of leadership and society and this need to be our emphasis moving forward”. The division’s stability branch contacted personnel:

It requires a change in standards and reweighting the competing tasks of public servants. They have to offer elected preachers, however just as, they should offer the general public by making sure legitimacy, justness and probity.

public slaves [should] […] provide the government with suggestions that is honest and frank. It’s vital you speak with your managers [you ever feel pressured to do or authorize something you are not comfortable with …] you have the Executive’s support not to put your name to anything that is not real or not in the general public passion. Nevertheless, this was just one of minority departments where senior staff faced these core issues directly in the early months after the royal commission reported. Most divisions did not name or go over the underlying reason for the failings: over-responsiveness to priests at the expense of shielding the public.

That this was seldom component of the communication from public service leaders to their personnel in the prompt after-effects of the royal payment does not bode well for lessons being picked up from the situation.

The departments were:

They noted that “given most of our people come from the private industry”, there was a need to boost training on “our obligations as public servants”.

The department of industry and scientific research was the most extensive. Assistant Meghan Quinn created to staff a number of times, showing that the “findings go to the heart of leadership and society and this ought to be our emphasis going onward”. The division’s honesty branch wrote to personnel: