Qld integrity report: Public service culture of fear due to bullying, belittling

The Coaldrake report into the Queensland Government’s integrity crisis has uncovered a public service culture where dissent is discouraged and staff are fearful for their roles, with a big change recommended.

Public servants are being subjected to “disrespectful, belittling, or bullying” interactions with ministers and their staff, and feel pressured to avoid ­giving advice in writing on difficult issues.

Professor Peter Coaldrake laid bare the serious allegations in his landmark report on Tuesday, as he called for a rejuvenation of the public sector and declared “the tone set at the top is essential”.

Professor Coaldrake also recommended top bureaucrats be appointed to fixed-term, five-year contracts that don’t align with the electoral cycle in a bid to strengthen the performance of the public service.

Professor Coaldrake warned changing the culture in the public service would take “time and effort”, saying political and professional leaders needed to demonstrate a culture of integrity and mutual respect.

“Senior professional staff and ministers need to set the example, to be willing to address breaches, and to support ongoing training and discussion of the issue,” he wrote.

“Evidence that breaches are being effectively dealt with is a necessary step to making positive change.

“This process needs to be widely visible to public servants, and senior leaders need to take responsibility for the process.”

Queensland Government headquarters at 1 William St, Brisbane City

Professor Coaldrake pointed to frequent agency restructuring, downsizing and leadership changes in the public service over the past 25 years.

He suggested this had led to uncertainty and confusion about the purpose, roles, values, and employment security of the public service.

“Public service officials can feel pressured, sometimes by ministerial staff, sometimes by more senior officers, to moderate advice developed with a ‘public interest’ goal in mind, to fit with a perceived ministerial preference – which may or may not be real – or to avoid giving advice on difficult issues in ­writing. Personal interactions with some ministers and ministerial staff, and indeed some senior officers, can be disrespectful, belittling, or bullying, and long-term detriment to ­careers real or apprehended.”

Professor Coaldrake stressed that the tone set at the top is essential, and suggested a common framework be developed to determine appropriate relationships among ministers, their staff and senior public ­service officers.

Professor Coaldrake warned a fear-based response could become entrenched in the culture of the public service, if bullying interactions and “intemperate demands for action or for compliant advice” became pervasive.

“It puts the organisation itself at risk,” he wrote.

“In the case of a government, it reduces the range of views available in decision-making, excludes the opportunity to truly canvas the diverse views of the community being served, and can leave that government with a false sense of the quality of its own performance.”

He also recommended a “major and concerted focus” on the rejuvenation of the “capability and capacity” of the state’s public sector.

In an attempt to create more stability for government and boost the performance of the public sector, he also recommended directors-general be appointed to fixed-term, five year contracts. The report highlighted the impacts of machinery of government (MOG) changes – which involves the restructuring of departments and which ministers oversee what agencies.

“Successive waves of MOG changes in Queensland over the last 10 years have led to the creation or dissolution of mega-departments, sometimes in short succession,” he wrote.

“MOG changes can be very expensive and disruptive, with one adviser suggesting that something as simple as an agency name change can cost in the vicinity of $5m to rollout across the state.”

“Widespread confusion” about how integrity bodies fit together was a common concern of the review, Prof Coaldrake said.

He noted Queensland’s integrity system was a “tangled web” where complaints about public servants were passed around, delaying outcomes and making them difficult to track.

Prof Coaldrake has also argued a single body should be established tasked to “triage, assess and direct complaints”, similar to the Brisbane City Council’s single phone number.

“The clearing house would be a single door to government where members of the public and public servants alike can bring their grievances and complaints about alleged corruption, administrative decisions and other customer complaints,” he notes.

This clearing house would also free the Crime and Corruption Commission to focus on combating major crime and corruption.