Qld integrity review: Shocking claims of toxic dysfunction revealed

The content of some of the 327 submissions to the Palaszczuk integrity review have been revealed – painting a picture of widespread dissatisfaction, frustration and fear. WHAT THEY SAID

Throughout almost 100 meetings and 327 submissions on integrity issues within the state’s public sector Professor Peter Coaldrake heard of widespread dissatisfaction, frustration and anger with an ineffective system failing to live up to its obligations.

Four months since he was tasked by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk with launching a review, Professor Coaldrake on Tuesday delivered a scathing indictment on a culture which culminated in public servants too willing to bend to the government’s perceived will.

He has pushed for a significant overhaul, beginning at the top.

Excerpts of the submissions which were included in the report indicate a running theme of complaints from those who participated in Professor Coaldrake’s review – the influence of lobbyists, the overreach of ministerial staff, and the erosion of functions which should hold the government to account.

Professor Coaldrake noted in his report the “view and experiences” of those who had witnessed the inner workings of the system were central to his analysis, while also saying many of those who made submissions “were extremely concerned that their confidentiality be respected”.

As a result, few people who made submissions were named. But one of them, the Clerk of the Parliament Neil Laurie, was.

Speaker of the Queensland Parliament Peter Wellington (left) chats to Neil Laurie, Clerk of Parliament, during a Finance and Administration Committee Estimates hearing at Parliament House in Brisbane, Tuesday, July 18, 2017. (AAP Image/Dan Peled) NO ARCHIVING

In his submission Mr Laurie said banning donations from lobbyists would be in the public interest, to ensure lobbyists were not used as a funnel for donations.

Mr Laurie also proposed consideration be given to splitting the advisory and regulatory functions of the Integrity Commissioner.

Also taking aim at the issue of lobbying was a former Queensland government Minister, who told the review “it is an affront to all good government principles that those who have the ability to pay get priority … there is a need for greater clarity on how ministers engage. There are no rules”.

In other instances, Professor Coaldrake requested meetings with key players – present and past ministers and directors-general, public sector employees, integrity body staff, ministerial advisers and business representatives.

One submitter expressed, as Professor Coaldrake described, a “typical view” with regards to fears documents released as a result of a Right To Information request could end up in the media.

“It is my experience that the public service agency I work for does not fully appreciate their role in ensuring ethical decision making or impartial advice to executives. Rather than act in the best interest of the community, decisions are often referred to the Courier-Mail test, i.e. what would ‘look bad’ if the decision was to be printed in The Courier-Mail,” they said.

“While how decisions reflect within the media is certainly part of the decision making framework for executives, these tests are being applied at a frontline and middle manager level, which effectively biases any options that are eventually presented to decision makers.”

In total, 28 submissions were made about concerns over RTIs, including 14 from current or former public servants, and eight from members of the public who had been angered by the RTI process.

In a damning submission, one senior executive described “attempts to suppress public records and subvert RTI processes”, while another longstanding officer described Departments as ‘hiding behind [RTI] legislation to prevent data release”.

One former Chief Information Officer wrote: ‘I have had people scream in my face regarding keeping written records as they believed they had relationships with clients which meant it was a betrayal of trust to write down decisions.

Peter Coaldrake’s integrity review attracted more than 300 submissions. File picture

“I am aware of (Deputy Directors-General) directing staff not to record anything. I had an (Assistant Director-General) who electronically copied Class A cabinet submissions and then text them to uncontrolled parties “because she liked to work that way”. Again it was career threatening to tell her it is against both PRA and the Cabinet Handbook.”

A further 36 submissions were received about whistleblowing.

One submitter wrote; “Despite PID protection, the systems designed to protect me failed, causing significant stress on myself and workplace. I was simply doing my job in reporting alleged corruption and meeting community expectations”.

Professor Coaldrake found that submitters’ comments were consistent with research that showed stress, impacted performance and isolation were prevalent with whistleblowers.

Submissions to the review were also critical of the Crime and Corruption Commission, with Professor Coaldrake being told the CCC is sometimes “ungenerously referred to in the public service agencies as ‘Australia Post’,” ­– receiving complaints and then sending them on.

A number of submissions also referred the review to concerns about the CCC “overreaching”, or undertaking tasks which would have been better managed by other integrity agencies.

One submitter said “the CCC is not capable of dealing with public service matters”.

“The CCC named the fraud investigation into Malcolm Stamp Operation Xeric. Translated roughly, that means “Dry”. That is the sort of approach taken by seconded police officers who care about organised crime but have little insight into the devastation being wrought by public service corruption.”

Another accused their own, unnamed department, of shirking responsibility for ethical matters.

“There is a perception that any responsibility the agency I work for has for ethical decision making, complaints handling etc. is the responsibility of the CCC. The CCC has a narrow framework and limited to no ability to conduct actual investigations. Complaints are referred to the CCC without any moderation, whom then reject the majority of them as out of scope. This is then considered closed by the agency I work for with limited to no follow up.”

In its own submission, the CCC pushed back on the establishment of a clearing house for complaints, ­ which Professor Coaldrake ultimately did recommend.

It expressed the view that the concept of a clearing house, comprising multiple agencies to triage matters, is unlikely to be helpful and would create a further layer of review and potentially an appeal process for decisions.

“That is considered a pessimistic view, and not one which serves the interests of consumers as much as it does the preferences of the current stewards of the system,” Professor Coaldrake said in his report.

The complaints process also came under fire, with one public servant describing their distressing experience of trying to make a complaint about a senior officer.

“I followed the usual internal processes for escalation and got to a point where I needed to go to the Queensland Ombudsman. The QO referred me back to the complaints contact for my Department, and said I needed to go to them before they would address the complaint,” they said.

“The problem here was that the person about whom I was complaining was the Department’s complaint contact I was referred to by the QO. Too many roadblocks.

“There needs to be a mechanism for escalation of complaints about senior officers that doesn’t rely on the person complaining to go through the relevant senior officer/s.”