“Political pressure is not new. How public servants handle it is the key to an effective and credible public service,” writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE. 

FRANK and fearless advice, as a key element of public service, has been whittled away for decades.

The Robodebt Royal Commission hearings have exposed the failures of politicians and public servants involved with the scheme.

When Catherine Holmes AC SC was appointed the Royal Commissioner there was an expectation that a flawed system that resulted in huge pain, and even death for some people, would be exposed.

The hope was that lessons could be drawn to ensure that design of similar systems into the future would avoid such flaws.

However, the Royal Commission has exposed so much more.

The terms of reference for the commission included examining “the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt scheme, including:

1. who was responsible for its design, development and establishment; and
2. why those who were responsible for its design, development and establishment considered the Robodebt scheme necessary or desirable; and
3. the advice, process or processes that informed its design and implementation; and any concerns raised regarding the legality or fairness of the Robodebt scheme.

The Royal Commission will report its findings at the end of June. The community will not be at all surprised if the recommendations include criminal charges levelled at politicians and public servants. 

Negligence that has resulted in such misery and death is an extraordinarily serious matter.

Will the lessons that ought to be learnt really be applied? The most important of these is about the cultural failures around “frank and fearless” advice to governments. 

The hearings revealed just how unfair the Robodebt program was in so many ways. Additionally, and more importantly, it became clear that there was advice about the lack of legality of the scheme that was suppressed, dismissed or concealed at a range of levels.

How could this happen? A culture of “can do” and “will facilitate” has become the norm across many of the senior elements of the public service. 

Ministers insist on public servants delivering on their ideas and goals – sometimes despite questionable processes.

Robodebt commenced under Scott Morrison who, as prime minister, secretly appointed himself as “lead” minister in a series of portfolios. Many have asked how this could happen. The answer lies, at least in part, in a public service culture that has developed into giving priority to delivering for Ministers.

There is a balance. In the Westminster system ministers are democratically responsible for what goes on in their portfolio. How often have we heard the term “the buck stops here”? A minister rightly sets the direction for the portfolio and expects the public servants to deliver. 

However, public servants within the portfolio have the real expertise on issues, or they need to know where to find it.

It is in this context where frank and fearless advice is so important. If all the public servants appearing before the Royal Commission had said they had seen and heeded legal advice, the responsibility would have fallen on the ministers involved. The buck would have stopped there!

There was advice as early as November 2014 from the Department of Social Services that “the proposal to smooth a debt amount over an annual or other defined period may not be consistent with the legislative framework”.

There were certainly some public servants who attempted to deliver frank and fearless advice up the chain. However, others who ought to have known better, were part of keeping such advice under wraps. They really ought to be in serious strife.

Considering that evidence before the Royal Commission explaining why laws were flouted included a departmental lawyer agreeing with counsel assisting “that it appeared pressure was coming from a clearance by Minister Morrison to have a new policy proposal developed to the point where it might be submitted to the Department of Finance”.

Mr Morrison was involved at the beginning of the scheme. Also revealed was further advice that was largely ignored during the continuing failures of the scheme under another Social Services Minister Christian Porter, and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge.

Political pressure is not new. How public servants handle political pressure is the key to an effective and credible public service. 

When the report is tabled later this year, it is to be hoped that it provides a serious wake-up call for senior public servants across all portfolios.