The Public Service Commission system of exposing maladministration and misconduct within the Public Service is ineffectual and seen by most Public Servants as a façade – just there for looks – not expected to produce results.
Effectively, the ratio of complaints made is about 1000 to the Ombudsman to every 1 (one) to the Public Service Commissioner.
If you take into consideration only those complaints made by Public Servants, then the ratio is still about the same.
However it is interesting that none of the complaints to the Public Service Commission were found in favour of the complainant.
Conversely, the Ombudsman has found an average of about 17% against the agencies and about 40% that could be resolved without making a finding as to fault. That must be seen by most as fairly even- with a chance that a complaint will at least get a fair hearing.
There is no doubt that the reason that nobody bothers complaining to the Public Service Commission is because there is no faith that the Commission objectively and fairly investigates claims. Moreover there is a widespread view that complaining to the Public Service Commission is as good as complaining directly to the person who is the subject of the complaint.
Officers are routinely subjected to bullying and harassment for voicing an opinion about Agencies faults or misconduct. The bullying used to stop these complaints is pervasive and institutionalised. Unfortunately nobody has confidence that the Commission will handle formal complaints fairly. Most officers prefer just to shut up and let whatever is wrong continue to happen.
The COA does not recommend using the Public Service Commission for anything. Experience suggests that information from the Commission is slanted towards Agency outcomes and not service to the public outcomes. Even information of a general nature from the Commission, seems always to provide excuses for Public Services problems rather than seeking to identify and resolve problems.
In short, the Commission seems to have missed the point that it is the public’s bulwark against bureaucratic problems. They seem to regard themselves as apologist’s for failed bureaucratic managers and a means to rationalise every weakness in Public administration. As a watchdog on the integrity and probity of the Public Service, the Commission is a toothless, three-legged, blind, and ineffectual puppy.
As one example of the sort of intimidation that is applied to subordinates who detect wrong-doing – just read the reports of harassment and bullying that was endemic in the Australian Wheat Board to silence concerned employees. The situation is no less apparent in the Public Service and our chances of a ‘Cole’ inquiry, is nonexistent.
During 2004–05, the Ombudsman received a total of 17,310 complaints, compared to 17,496 in the previous year. The pattern of complaints was similar to the pattern in the previous year, with a decrease in complaints about the Australian Taxation Office ( ATO ), the Australian Federal Police ( AFP ) and Centrelink, and an increase in the number of complaints about Australia Post, the Child Support Agency and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
The decrease in total complaints received in both 2004–05 and 2003–04 is against the trend of the previous few years, during which the number of complaints to the Ombudsman was fairly stable. There has, however, been a steady increase in the number of more complex matters brought to the office and in complaints that alleged systemic problems in public administration (see agency-specific sections on pages 25 to 65). There was an increase of 33% in the number of other approaches to the office, such as out of jurisdiction matters and requests for information (see page 17 in ‘Performance’ section of report).
This year, the Ombudsman investigated 33% (6,198 issues) of all complaint issues finalised, compared to 30% last year. Of those complaint issues investigated by the office, agency error or deficiency was identified in 14% (compared to 20% last year), while there was no error or deficiency identified in 43% (the same as last year). In the remaining 43% of cases the matter was resolved without need to determine whether there was a deficiency.
The APS whistleblowing scheme is provided for by the Act and regulations. Section 16 of the Act prohibits victimisation of, or discrimination against, an APS employee who reports a breach or alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. The regulations require agency heads to establish procedures for dealing with such reports. The procedures must observe procedural fairness, comply with the Privacy Act 1988 and provide that APS employees in the agency may report breaches or alleged breaches of the Code to the agency head, the Commissioner or the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Generally, disclosures should be made to the agency head, or a person authorised by the agency head, and investigated by the relevant APS agency. Where it is not appropriate for the agency head to deal with a particular matter or where the whistleblower is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation by the agency, the whistleblower may report the matter to the Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner.
Seventeen reports were sent to the Commissioner during 2005–06, two less than the number received during 2004–05. Nine of these were from current employees and eight were from private citizens.
The Commissioner considered disclosures from two employees in relation to the conduct of agency heads and a disclosure from an employee in relation to the conduct of the Merit Protection Commissioner. In all three cases, it was considered that there was no evidence to support the allegations of inappropriate behaviour made by the employees. In particular it was the Commissioner’s view that the allegations relating to the Merit Protection Commissioner were reflecting the employee’s disappointment with the outcome of a review matter. Of the remaining disclosures by APS employees, four did not meet the criteria for investigation by the Commissioner, and two reports were on hand at the end of the reporting period.
Where disclosures did not meet the criteria for consideration, advice was provided on appropriate ways in which concerns could be addressed, either by referral to the relevant agency head or other administrative review bodies, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman.