History never repeats itself, but does often rhyme (Part 1)
Mark Twain’s words are a useful adage when thinking about government reviews or Royal Commissions into past events – every situation is different, but the factors behind poor governance and bad behaviour are often very similar. So it is with the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.
There is no doubt that the Robodebt Royal Commission report identified examples of egregious, ignorant and cowardly conduct that require significant changes to APS processes and behaviours. As any regulatory enthusiast knows, improving behaviour often starts with improving knowledge and awareness of what types of behaviour are appropriate and expected and what are not, and the Report’s recommendations include improving Federal Budget and New Policy Proposal processes (Recommendations 15.1 to 15.6); improving APS awareness of public service obligations, including a ‘Knowledge College’ (Recommendations 23.2 and 23.5) and developing standards for documenting important decisions and discussions (23.8).
The current APS reform priorities of integrity and improved capability also align well with these ideas, however but I don’t think it is enough - like the APSC’s response to the APS Hierarchy and Classification review (discussed here) you can’t fix fundamental problems of power, responsibility and ethical bankruptcy with wall charts of appropriate Leadership Behaviours..
More importantly, as Mark Twain says, the APS has sort of been here before. In 2014, in another Royal Commission Report, this time the one into the Home Insulation Program, the Royal Commissioner, Ian Hanger AM QC, said this:
“I do not think the deficiencies I have identified are ones that could only have occurred in the specific circumstances of the Home Insulation Program. Several systemic or fundamental shortcomings can be identified which not only are capable of repetition … but which might be avoided through diligence and the taking of some additional measures.
I would recommend that the Australian Government use the experience of the Home Insulation Program as a means by which to learn from the mistakes identified in the report, many of which can be traced to overconfidence and unrealistic optimism.”
And following on that Royal Commission, in 2015, Peter Shergold’s Learning from Failure Report[1] included the following recommendations (my emphasis):
Public service advice is vital to good government and, to this end, Secretaries should be held accountable for the quality of advice provided to ministers by their departments (A1).
Whilst acknowledging the value of frank and fearless oral discussions, the Australian Public Service Commissioner should issue a Direction that significant advice also be provided to ministers in writing. Ministers should insist on receiving frank written advice from the APS, noting that it is generally their decision whether to accept or reject all or part of the advice (A2).
An APS-wide policy on record keeping should provide practical guidance about when and how records must be created, including that records of deliberative discussions in all forms, including digital, should be retained (A4).
To acknowledge ministerial ownership of Cabinet proposals, submissions should open with a personal Ministerial Statement outlining the policy’s purpose, expected outcomes and anticipated implementation risks (B5).
In preparing Cabinet documents, Secretaries should ensure that the arguments presented reflect the viewpoint of their ministers. Assisted by government coordination processes, they also need to make certain that all relevant considerations for government are addressed in a clear and succinct fashion (B6).
To inform and improve policy design, departments and major agencies should gauge their ministers’ appetites for risk on individual programs and across their portfolio, and reach agreement on how implementation challenges will be identified, accepted and managed within agreed resources (C9).
All major Cabinet proposals should be supported by a minister’s endorsed Risk Management Plan, submitted to PM&C and the Department of Finance, and available for perusal by other Cabinet ministers (C11).
For all projects and programs, there needs to be a clear understanding about who accepts end-to-end responsibility for managing implementation, wields delegated authority and where accountability resides (D14).
It’s not hard to see that these findings and recommendations are equally applicable to the Robodebt scheme..
As to why APS history is sort of repeating, I will have some views on that next time..
[1] Learning from failure (2015) – Peter Shergold AC: Why government policy initiatives have gone so badly wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved.