Ministerial staff got government jobs that weren’t advertised

A selection panel for a highly paid Victorian government job altered a report to drop the scores on two applicants and elevate one who had not been formally interviewed, state Ombudsman Deborah Glass’ latest major report, which lashes sloppy hiring practices across departments, found.

Although the report did not find evidence the public service had been stacked with partisan operatives, Glass did uncover evidence of poor practices that explained why so many interviewees felt senior recruitment had become politicised.

The report said ministerial staff were often appointed without the job being advertised. This was justified by departments that said they needed someone who understood how governments worked and could “get things done”.

Out of 16 appointments reviewed by the ombudsman, 11 were direct appointments. Only two of nine eligible positions were advised on the government’s jobs and skills exchange.

“Candidates were often hand-picked without an open and advertised process and slotted into new roles – sometimes without position descriptions, defined duties or a clearly documented business need,” the report said.

The ombudsman also raised concerns about jobs in which recruitment was rushed and shoddy, the selection process was not transparent and there was little evidence left behind that kept up with the public services standards for record keeping.

Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass.Credit: Luis Enrique Ascui

In one case study, a staff member on a government selection panel admitted to “sloppy” practices after the panel edited its report to recommend a candidate, named Executive B, who had never been interviewed or lodged a formal application. Their identity was left anonymous to protect their reputation.

Another applicant, Executive C, had been the panel’s preferred candidate, but it decided not to offer them the job. Internal correspondence from a panel member said: “that’s a shame about [Executive C]; I presume that is from ministerial feedback”.

Staff speaking to the ombudsman said they could not recall which minister this person had fallen out of favour with but said there was a “view” about their standing in the minister’s office.

Shortly after this decision was made, Executive B contacted the agency about the job and spoke to staff various times on the phone, providing details about their experience.

The panel’s selection report was later edited to add Executive B to the list of applicants, provide them with the highest score out of all candidates and to lower the score of two other competitors.

A panel member admitted in interviews that this document was inaccurate and was likely to mislead an independent reviewer. Executive B was hired, but the ombudsman did not find that they knew about the unusual way the process was conducted or make any findings of misconduct.

“Perception matters. Not only must merit selection be done, it must be seen to be done,” Glass said on Wednesday.

“Disregarding this principle makes it less likely that the public sector will attract and retain capable leaders. The quality and candour of advice upon which important decisions are made will suffer. Confidence in the strict neutrality of public service will be shaken.”

In another case study, a former ministerial staffer named Executive E was interviewed for a job, but the meeting was described as a “train wreck” and they were assessed as “not suitable”. They later told the ombudsman they’d stopped to help a woman needing an ambulance on the way there.

After the interview, the department secretary spoke to Executive E, and they were offered a contract for a different senior position.

When questioned by investigators, the secretary said they approved the creation of the new role and the hiring of the executive because they believed the person had already cleared the selection process from the initial job interview. They were surprised when shown a copy of the report that said the person was not suitable.

The ombudsman said the evidence showed the executive had been capable in the role and had respected the public service’s independence. But she said the way the hiring process was conducted had risked damaging their reputation and “created the understandable perceptions of politicisation”.

“We found neither appointee was hired due to partisan political considerations. Yet both case studies demonstrate the level of suspicion that can arise when open and transparent selection processes are not strictly followed, to the detriment of the public sector and those appointed,” the report said.

Glass also examined dozens of senior appointments at the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions after the 2018 state election.

Submissions made to the investigation questioned why so many roles were replaced and so quickly, and complained of a centralised takeover after multiple Department of Premier and Cabinet employees filled these jobs.

The ombudsman did not find evidence of a takeover or political recruitment, but did find there were issues in recruitment that fuelled a perception the process was politicised.

Glass also said poor record keeping had affected many of the investigations she had launched as part of the larger politicisation probe.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.